On 7/19/08 10:36 AM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
But that, IMO perfectly sensible, combination of formal posting
cutoffs (whether to protect the Secretariat or to make sure
documents were available when they needed to be) with informal
provision for waivers, gradually morphed into a firm,
chiseled-in-stone rule with no exceptions and that no one could
really question, even a sitting AD trying to move a document
forward. I suggest that has become a pattern, but let me focus
on this particular case.
I imagine the WG would applaud. Many of us, especially those
who have been increasingly concerned that the formation and
application of rules is replacing the application of good sense,
would also applaud. I don't see any downsides other than
breaching the sanctity of The Rules, and I don't believe we
actually have Sacred Rules around here.
This situation gives you an opportunity to show the community
that the discretion given to ADs and the IESG --discretion that
is latent in our fundamental procedures-- can actually be used
to expedite moving documents forward efficiently, not just to
slow them down with quibbles, procedural rituals, nit-picking,
and personal preferences. The ability to use discretion that
way is, IMO, the strongest argument for retaining that
discretion, rather than having the IESG spend time to fight off
real or perceived community efforts to restrict or abolish it
because of a perception that it is regularly misused.
Good. One generation's rule of thumb becomes the next generation's
dogma. The IETF should sit up and really think when someone suggests
that a process has become dogma.
See you soon ... Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf