--On Saturday, 08 March, 2008 18:13 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (quibble - I call the BCPs that describe the principles for
> the process "process" documents, so I'd say that BCPs are
> probably the wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and
> publishing *procedure* documents - and the DISCUSS procedure
> is a procedure. But I think we're in fundamental agreement.)
We may be in slight disagreement because, using your
terminology...
(1) I believe that BCPs are the wrong mechanism for reaching
consensus on and publishing "process" documents. I think there
has been a clear track record of problems, that we continue to
get snarled with the facts that they are rarely "current
practice" when published and that applying "best" to them is
self-congratulatory and self-serving. They are simply the
process documents we have chosen to use. The argument for
using a different document structure --more like standing
documents that may change in an orderly way-- is probably also
stronger (or at least different) for them than for Technical
BCPs or Standards-Track materials.
(2) I believe that BCPs are seriously and strongly the wrong
mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing "procedure"
documents. We agree on that, and agree that using BCPs for
procedural documents and issues is even worse than using them
for more formal process principles and definition.
And, incidentally, I can argue that your application of those
words is backwards. We need some better terminology in this
area, but that is again, a very separate issue from what we do
with IONs (or "process" BCPs).
john
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf