I think that is still true and tried to convince the OpenID people that this was the case but they did not believe me.
The question is priorities and costs. Having a process that is designed not to function imposes real costs and reduces the influence of the organization.
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The waist of the hourglass doesn't need that much work... and in fact a
mature system like the internet seems to quite successfully resist
change there.
joel
On 10/27/10 2:48 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Tony,
>
> I note that there seems to be some correlation between the degradation
> of the IETF process and
> the disappearance of the Internet research community from the IETF (the
> US government
> decided that no further R&D funding was required, since the Internet was
> "done".)
>
> Bob Braden
>> It would work if the overall process were more efficient. Now we
>> effectively
>> go WG I-D to full IS, which is what your eloquent overview of the driving
>> force notes. If we truncated WG I-D at the common points people could
>> agree
>> to start implementing, and have PS actually document the evolution of the
>> implementations, we would get back closer to when the IETF was
>> productive. ...
>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf