Closing down draft-secretaries-good-practices

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

 



Hi,

I have been discussing what to do with this document with the IESG and with the
authors.

It would appear that there is not sufficient support for publishing the work as
an RFC, so I will mark the I-D as "Dead" and remove it from the process.

Of course, you are all welcome to continue to discuss its content, and the work
could be brought back if there is a desire to do so.

I am not going to let this moment pass without spending a few words to say how
disappointed I am with the tone and lack of constructiveness in the debate about
this document. It seems to me that a lot of what is bad about the IETF emerged
during the discussions and that there was very little attempt to ascribe good
intentions to the authors. I think that should be a cause for shame among those
who sent comments.

I know that it is hard to find time in your busy lives to read and review
drafts. Nevertheless, continuing the thread of review based on one version of a
document without looking at the new revision is not helpful.

I know that you all care a lot about the IETF process and the things that make
the IETF unique. Nevertheless, the healthy paranoia expressed in many of the
comments seemed to me to go over the line. There is often a claim that the IESG
is unwilling to make changes to IETF process, is slow, and ossified. Well, in
this case it would appear that the IETF community is unwilling to even
acknowledge the current state of its own processes or to allow them to be
documented with consensus for future reference.

Adrian





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