Regarding your comment: > Working groups take too long. The IESG often takes too long and ADs often raise > unexpected and possibly even arbitrary barriers. We have moved to an enormously > heavyweight model. Timeliness is almost never a factor. In general I think that there is a lot of truth to this comment. I agree that Russ' proposal does not fix these problems. However... > What this thinking really does is to take attention away from the actual > barriers, which others have cited at length. This is where I disagree with you. The simple change that Russ has proposed is not what is taking away from discussion of the actual barriers. What is taking attention away from discussion of the actual barriers is the lengthy debate about Russ's proposed change. Russ's proposed change is a small step in the right direction. It is not going to solve all problems (with the IETF process, the Internet, various national debts, global warming, or <fill in your favorite problem here>). If we want to solve other more serious problems, then feel free to come up with proposed solutions. However, blocking one small step in the right direction is not a productive way to encourage a different larger step in the right direction. The only way that we can find out whether moving to a two stage process will help is to try it out. I agree that there is a possibility that we might find that this causes no real change to the way that standards are done. I don't see that as such a bad downside. The potential upside is that there may be slightly more RFCs moved to full standard status. In my opinion the fact that this very simple and straightforward change draws such heavy debate is a disincentive to anyone who would propose other additional changes. Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:55 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: what is the problem bis On 10/26/2010 9:32 AM, Ross Callon wrote: > There are two problems that Russ's draft may very well solve: One issue with > our current system is that there is no incentive to go from Proposed Standard > to Draft Standard (since you are only going from one "intermediate state" > short of full standard to another "intermediate state" also short of full > standard). The theory that this change will create this incentive is exactly what I meant by charming but unfounded. Really, the premise here is an appealing fantasy. It presumes that the extra label imposes a psychological barrier, but there is no evidence that this is true. What this thinkin really does is to take attention away from the actual barriers, which others have cited at length. Working groups take too long. The IESG often takes too long and ADs often raise unexpected and possibly even arbitrary barriers. We have moved to an enormously heavyweight model. Timeliness is almost never a factor. Nothing gets better until that changes. > Another issue is that increasingly each of our standards relies on > multiple other standards, so that RFCs can only move to Draft Standard if > multiple other drafts do also, and it is too much trouble to move multiple > drafts all at the same time. This, at least, is a pragmatic point. I think there has been little effort to evaluate it deeply. It might have some benefit; it might not. Where is the archive of consideration? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf