On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So is your expectation that if Russ's draft gets published, the bar for PS will suddenly drop? > > If so, why do we need Russ's draft to begin with? We already have rfc2026. Why would a new RFC which says "follow this other RFC" be needed?? I think it could, but that would require feedback from the community on Russ's draft, pushing that way of going forward. As you'll see in my response to John, I think there are problems there and other ways forward. > > Later you say: >> if the community >> accepts that this restores the 2026 bar for the first rung *and holds the IESG >> to it* > > > How do we do that? Why aren't we doing it now, since rfc2026 already exists? In what way does Russ's draft make it any easier (or possible) to hold them to it? > Feedback to the IESG that the community wants this aspect of 2026 restored could take a couple of forms: messages (public or private) to that effect, appeals, feedback to NomCom, and recalls. I'd start with the first, honestly, because this is really an issue between the IESG and the community. Everyone is looking for a way forward that meets the community's needs. Just my two cents, regards, Ted > -hadriel > > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 7:15 PM, Ted Hardie wrote: > >> As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this >> thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at >> the root of all this. One way to draw this is: >> >> Issue: Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the >> standards process >> >> Contributing issues: >> >> --------->WG formation is slow, as there are now often 2 BoFs before work begins >> --------->Working group activity is slow, as it pulses to physical meetings >> --------->Late surprises arrive from late cross-area review (often >> from teams) or the IESG >> --------------->Because there is little early cross-area review after a BoF >> >> Resulting issues: >> >> ------->Little energy remains in working groups to advance documents >> once they do complete >> -------->The IESG sees that few documents get early re-review as part >> of advancement, and >> raises the document quality requirement for the first >> rung to prevent impact on the >> rest of the ecosystem >> >> Results of the results: >> >> ------->Things get slower >> ------->More work is done outside the IETF and brought in only to be blessed >> ------->More of the internet-runs on Internet Drafts. >> >> Results of the results of the results: >> >> --------->It's harder to tell which documents are actually the ones >> you need, both because >> some actual Standards documents are obsoleted by drafts >> and because some sets >> of drafts have functional consensus and some don't. >> >> Results of the results of the results: >> >> ---------->ADs and others want more tutorial data added to the RFCs, >> which makes >> producing them slower. >> >> >> Try to find one place to tug on this and the actual results of your >> tugging won't >> really be seen until a full document cycle, and there will be odd >> states in between. >> That causes debate and discussion, and worry with all the nice people >> we've tasked >> to worry about these things (and many others besides). That burns energy that >> could be going into working groups and, well, you get the picture >> (things get slower). >> >> Should we do nothing? No. But we need to accept that no single thing we do >> is going to solve all of the problems. Changing the document labeling >> will not increase >> early cross-area review. But if the top-line issue is "Documents achieving the >> first rung of the standards track do so too slowly" we may have to tackle >> it, the WG creation problem, and the WG "pulsed activity" problem at once >> to make real progress. >> >> If the problem we want to tackle is "The first rung is set too high", then there >> are other possibilities (including simply recognizing that the first rung is >> really WG draft, marked or unmarked as it may be). I personally don't >> think that's quite enough, as the value of the IETF (as opposed to its >> working groups) is that it can and does cross-WG and area review. But I >> see the attraction--if the first rung goes lower, the documents may be produced >> faster, which can mean that there is enough energy to go up the track plus >> the cross-area review is functionally earlier. My worry (yes, I worry) >> is that if we >> re-use a label for the first rung after lowering its bar, we create a >> confusion that we >> can't easily solve *especially if the energy does not magically appear*. >> >> As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be certain >> that there is more than one rat down there, and be realistic about the >> energy we have on how many we can tackle. Russ's draft tries to >> do two things: >> >> Restore the 2026 rules for Proposed as the functionally in-use bar for the >> first rung. >> >> Reduce the bar for Standard to the old bar for Draft. >> >> Listening to the discussion, I think we have focused a great >> deal on point two, but have either not really noticed point >> one or didn't believe it. I think this addresses a marketing problem >> (long an issue, though now commonly explained away) and it >> focuses on the first two "resulting issues" in the quasi-chart above, and >> thus may have some cascade effects on the other two. It doesn't >> tackle any of the contributing issues, but this is not really a defect >> in my eyes, as those can't really be addressed by document issues. >> >> Are there other ways to tackle this? Sure. But if the community >> accepts that this restores the 2026 bar for the first rung *and holds the IESG >> to it*, then I think this is one useful place to tug on the tangle of issues. >> >> Just my two cents, >> >> regards, >> >> Ted >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf