Hiya, On 01/29/2013 05:49 PM, SM wrote: > Hi Stephen, > At 01:59 29-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point >> where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join >> the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively >> either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and >> regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-ish >> too, I dunno. (And before someone asks: no, I don't conclude >> that its just a problem with this particular experiment, and >> yes, I might be wrong there:-) > > In 2004 it was written that the IETF has designed process changes over > the last ten years in one of two ways: announcement by the IESG, > sometimes based on informal agreements with limited community > involvement and awareness, and formal use of the same mechanism used for > protocol specification. > > My first reaction was that IETF participants are unwilling or unable to > consider 3933 experiments. My second reaction was: what if > draft-farrell-ft was an IESG statement? Would the same outcome be > reached? The comments posted to this mailing list were addressed. The > concerns were left open. I don't think that draft would ever have been suitable for an IESG statement (maybe some bits might, but not the whole thing) so speculating on that is probably not useful. I also don't think it was by any means a perfect proposal, but I do think it was good enough to try out or would have been with the text changes discussed during LC. It was proposed as an experiment, but I think was interpreted as a proposed process change, at least as I read a lot (but by no means all) of the comments. And I think it was that kind of concern that was left open. I'm sure that misinterpretation was partly my fault and that some or all of the folks commenting disagree with me that their comments were based on a misinterpretation of what was proposed. I was also surprised by the extent to which comments focused on near worst possible outcomes. But in any case, that's life - I don't think the draft had anything like rough consensus however you look at it, so Adrian's call was correct and on we go to the next thing. I just hope the next thing isn't more process discussion involving me:-) S. > > Regards, > -sm > >