Hi Pete, On 2011-07-31 04:55, Pete Resnick wrote: ... > I *really* want an answer to the issue that Scott raises. Eric and Brian > each refer to a "baby step". A baby step toward what exactly? > > If the answer is simply, "to align documentation with current > procedure", that's fine, but then I want to know: a) Why is it useful > and positive to line up documentation with current procedure? That is, > what are we gaining by publishing this? I believe that the present situation is confusing both to IETF newcomers (who may falsely believe that the IETF actually follows the 3 stage process) and, worse, confusing to users of IETF standards (who may falsely believe that a document isn't useful until it's advanced). We, and those users, gain by reducing the confusion. (Note: I did not write "eliminating the confusion".) > and b) This document is > identical to neither 2026 *nor* current procedure, so how is it > accomplishing the goal of aligning with current procedure anyway? It defines a practice which is *very* close to present practice, apart from a minor name change. I think that's the best we can do, but that's why it's a baby step, not a no-op. > > If the answer is, "Yes, this document will cause a change in the percent > of Proposed Standards that move up", then I want to know "How?", because > like Scott, I haven't heard the answer stated in this dicussion. It might cause a change, simply because the effort of making the single move PS->IS will get you to the end state, whereas previously you had to make two efforts, PS->DS->STD. But only time will tell if this changes our collective behaviour. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf