carsten,
>> Personally I think accountability has value.
>
> There is a difference between backward accountability (blame
> assignment) and forward accountability (making sure the mistake is
> not made again, which implies understanding the mistake and why it
> was made in the first place). I agree the latter has value.
we have had an operational failure. at least in the ops world, post
morta are usual in failure cases so that we can learn from the failure
and perhaps not set ourselves up to repeat history. or worse. [0]
we are about to do a rushed patch to the entire network. perhaps we
should have some confidence that the processes and plan will have a good
result. if it is the process which broke, maybe not following it would
be wise, especially in in rush mode. if it was (partially) the
processors, then maybe some change needs to be there.
and a good first look at the goal might not be a bad idea as well,
before we run toward it. though maybe the result of the rfc++ bof in
bkk was a good goal check.
the belgians did shockingly well for 2.5 years without an elected
government; the civil service kept turning the wheels. maybe the rfc
streams (pl) can still be processed for a bit while we try to design a
more failure resistant relationship with the rse process.
gedanken experiment: should the rse even be directly part of the
ietf/iab/... process, or be much more independent, e.g. a la the iana?
randy
---
0 - a lot of us are waiting to learn from vz for last week's exciting
routing experiment
