On Aug 31, 2013, at 2:02 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It seems like this would be a good time for an update. A few > comments: > > . I think there are a few things that we've been taking for > granted that everybody knows, because they did, but that > may not longer be the case and consequently they should be > made explicit. One that really popped out at me while > reading this is that we may need to be clearer that people > are participating in the IETF as individuals and > contributions are evaluated in that light > > . I'd like to see some mention of consensus-seeking behavior; > that is to say, we make decisions on the basis of rough > consensus and so the goal of discussion should be to build > consensus rather than to "win." > > . I'm not 100% comfortable with the concept of "violating > guidelines > > . I think it was a good idea to remove text that could be > discouraging to new participants. I think it would be useful to point out that there is a big difference between getting a draft published as an RFC and getting the proposal deployed. The point of the IETF process is that it provides an opportunity to build the consensus necessary to deploy the proposal. The consensus is the real product, the documents are secondary. Which is why I find the folk who work as consultants claiming to 'grease the skids' of IETF process and get documents through are doing their clients and the community a disservice. Yes, it is possible to get a document published through the backdoor. But doing business that way misses the opportunity to build consensus. It is also the case that some consensus matters more than others. A proposal cannot be deployed without the support of people who write code and operate infrastructure that must be changed. So people who work to effect a back room carve up that cuts those people out of the process are wasting everyone's time