--On Thursday, May 28, 2009 13:17 -0700 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [[ I'm not picking on John: I could have sent this reply to
> any of the messages on the thread. ]]
>
> At 2:27 PM -0400 5/28/09, John C Klensin wrote:
>> our categories of Proposed/
>> Draft/ Full Standard, BCP, Experimental, Informational, and
>> perhaps FYI are not well-suited to all of the documents
>> circumstances we regularly encounter
>
> Of course. This is clear to folks at all levels of experience
> in the IETF.
>
>> and that it is time to
>> review and revise those categories.
>
> ...and expect a different outcome than our most recent
> attempts? The previous attempts did not fail for lack of
> participation from enough concerned people, nor from the lack
> of workable ideas: they failed due to lack of energetic
> agreement.
In fairness, I cannot remember when there been a serious
discussion about adding or redefining categories, even though
there have been many discussions about how many maturity levels
we need in the standards track and a few about whether we should
be using "BCP" for internal processes documents.
> A different idea is for the IETF Leadership to say "in May
> 2011, we will start the Newtrack++ effort, and we won't start
> it before then". In every troublesome case in the next two
> years, the IETF community agrees to do a group shrug, make
> notes, and move on. Two years from now, those whose shoulders
> do not hurt from too much shrugging can make another run at
> fixing the process.
>
> Permanent repetitive process work does not lead to good
> results for the organization or for the individuals who get
> wrapped up in the work.
While I agree, I would also point out that attempts to get
process moratoriums declared have not been successful either.
We were, IMO, badly in need of one after the Newtrk meltdown but
have since had a long and painful IPR process and debate (not
over yet, apparently), a few rounds of debates about
boilerplate, several efforts to fine-tune the Nomcom, the
various pieces of the RFC Editor Model and new RFP (&c.)
processes, plans about changes in RFC and I-D formats, about
revisions to RFC 3932 and related procedures, and even about the
criteria the IAOC uses to pick meeting locations and how it
involves the community (or not) in the selection of those
criteria. Some of these things are related to some of the
others in ways that make working on some of them without the
others questionable at best.
In addition, that shrug of the shoulders isn't just a shrug --
it requires making difficult decisions about how to handle
things and assign them to categories when none of the categories
are an exact match, selecting meeting locations, formatting I-Ds
and RFCs, etc.
So, while I would be in favor of the time out you propose, I'm
in favor of it only if it is comprehensive and that we don't end
up having AD encouragement or agreements to push through "just a
few" process-related changes. Experience tells me that is
unlikely, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf