On 28 Aug 2019, at 10:17, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Julian, are you really asking that we stop the rollout of v3, have an extended working group process to design a new v3, and then develop tools, etc. for that?
I read Julian's message quite differently. I believe he is asking that every change from what the community agreed to in RFC 7991 be again discussed in the community. That is in contrast to what is happening currently, which is that one developer is making many changes to RFC 7991 and those changes will be implemented in the canonical format without community discussion.
I think the community would be very unhappy at the delay.
The community would indeed be very unhappy about a delay due to starting over. No one has asked the community if a delay to vet just the changes to the community's agreement on RFC 7991 would be OK.
And just to be clear, I am pretty sure there was input from lots of constituencies at every stage of the development of the v3 we have in front of us.
You are incorrect. There was input from some of us early during the current stage of development of v3 (that is, changes to RFC 7991), but that input was rejected forcefully by the developer. We were told that getting the tool done in a timely manner was more important than vetting the changes, and that the developer's changes would be accepted without community review.
My personal response to that was to stop reviewing the changes because it felt like a waste of my time. Because of this, I am removing my name as editor of 7991-bis because the changes in it will not reflect a community consensus.
--Paul Hoffman
