Hi Hector, On 12/02/2012 12:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote: > This proposal sounds interesting but couldn't it run into conflicts when > there are competition in running code? Who's running code do you fast > track? How does it apply in the protocol updates area, i.e. BIS work? Good point. I clarified that its just drafts heading to PS and -bis drafts are just fine. (Might actually be well-suited for those, and I'd not thought about that.) > This proposal and thread, similar to the recent others, all seem to be > looking for endorsing methods for lack of a better term, "rubber > stamping" and fast tracking work items, in particular when there are WG > related barriers holding back the WG work item(s) production progress. Well, I'm after something where fast-track != rubber-stamp, but I do agree that that's a hard balance to achieve. I'm not claiming that this draft does achieve that balance, but such a balance is a goal. Cheers, S. > > I personally do not have an issue with expediting work when the proper > protocol engineering is done and the adequate engineering reviews are > done, in fact, I depend on the IETF/IESG engineering do this work. I > depend on the long time wisdom and engineering judgment of the IETF > leaders and reviewers to watch over sensitive engineering issues, > including conflict of interest related matters. > > In the end, we are talking about trusting the process. If IETF > participants, especially those who don't attend meetings and long > participated remotely or via mailing list, lose faith in the WG process, > these process change proposals may expedite IETF work, but they may also > handicap the potential of a proposed standard, change and industry > following. > > -- > HLS > > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement. >> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as >> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then >> that's fine, it can die. >> >> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't >> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no >> "official" status whatsoever. >> >> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome. >> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this >> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible, >> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list. >> >> Regards, >> Stephen. >> >> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft >> >> >