Adrian - I have to say I had an entirely different experience than you apparently did with the IETF discussion of this document. Without exhaustively reviewing the various threads, my recollection is that the *content* of the document was mostly considered useful, while there was significant disagreement with the *process* of publishing that content as a BCP or (later) Informational RFC. I specifically don't recall any attempt to ascribe anything but good intentions to the authors and I do recall many descriptions of the content of the document like "very useful material" (my own words). I truly don't understand how a discussion of the process through which material like the contents of this document can be construed as "over the line". It seems to me members of the IETF community had a difference of opinion (I wouldn't even call it as strong as "healthy paranoia") about the best way in which the material in the document should be made available to the community. I would recognize this difference of opinion as a recognition of the way in which IETF processes have evolved: material that may change over time, such as the responsibilities of WG admins, would be better made available without significant overhead to updates. In general, the discussion seemed quite constructive and healthy to me. I further disagree that draft-secretaries-good-practices necessarily reflects "the current state of [the IETF's] own processes". As I wrote, neither of the two WGs I currently work for generate enough administrative work to warrant a secretary. I managed to chair/co-chair another WG for many years without a secretary. In summary, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that "a lot of what is bad about the IETF emerged during the discussions". Rather, in my opinion, the IETF discussion was appropriate to the review and assessment of consensus. I hope the authors will consider posting their work on an appropriate IETF wiki page so we can all benefit from it. - Ralph On Dec 9, 2014, at 9:40 AM 12/9/14, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >