I don't think it's "resistance to changing a process that we are not following" - I think it's which part of the process we think isn't working, or which part is IMPORTANT that isn't working. Going from three steps of which only one step is used, to two steps of which only one step will be used, isn't helpful. It's like the old metaphor of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's not the critical problem. And it wastes time/energy from either fixing the leak or getting in lifeboats. -hadriel On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Well I for one would prefer to call the IESG's bluff than spend five minutes proposing taking HTTP to STANDARD. > > We are clearly not following the process and have not been doing for ten years. I don't think there is anyone who is even claiming the the process is viable. > > So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not following? > > > Fear of unspecified bad happenings is not a justification. There are plenty of standards organizations that can manage to do this. If the doomsday people are so worried about the possibility of something bad then we should adopt a process from W3C or ITU or OASIS that is proven to work. > > So in my view there are two options > > 1) Adopt Russ's proposal to change the process documentation to reflect reality > > 2) Admit that we don't understand process and choose a process from some other group. > > > My preference would be for the first option. But if people are really serious in their belief that there could be something really bad from tinkering with this that would argue for #2. > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf