Re: When is a 3933 experiment necessary? [Was: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code) to Experimental RFC]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 16:25 31-01-2013, Barry Leiba wrote:
We often pick on every suggested change and point out every possible
flaw, with different people holding out behind different flaws, and we
get stuck there.  There seems to be some assumption, when we do this,
that our current process doesn't also have significant flaws.  But the
very reason we're trying to change something is that we *already* have
a process with flaws.

We know that no process we ever come up with will be perfect, and
agreeing to change is a question of deciding what the flaw balance is.
 We need to allow ourselves to move from one (known, "comfortable")
set of flaws to a new set, *if* we can come to a reasonable agreement
that we've improved things in a useful way.

I missed RFC 5111 which was a 3933 experiment.  The success metrics were:

  "Progress on the basic milestones is measured by whether they are
   completed within the time-frame specified in the initial
   Exploratory Group Charter  ..."

  "an Exploratory Group whose mailing list shows minimal traffic would
   probably not be a good candidate for milestone extension."

There is also RFC 4633 about long-term suspensions. There isn't any success metric. The following is worth highlighting:

  "In no event shall a suspension last for more than six months nor shall any
   suspension last beyond the end of the RFC 4633 experiment."

The following are selective quotes:

  "During the Gen Area meeting today, it was asserted that if this
   experiment is successful, this document might become a BCP essentially
   as written."

  "I think the spirit of RFC 3933 is to get things tried out quickly,
   so I don't buy this. The community has been discussing related topics
   in the recent past. Of course, if many comments come in during LC,
   Sam would need to rethink."

  'I see "going back to BCP83" as so unpleasant to IESG members that the
   "experiments" will be extended.'

There are things that were said which were never done. There are things that were predicted and that never happened. Maybe it is because of process flaws. Maybe it is because it is easier to give up instead of trying.

Regards,
-sm


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]