Guntur,
I have to say – I sat and thought about what you wrote here – and there was one line tha really struck in in the context of this whole debate
<snip>
> Any change requires a reason to overcome the associated hurdle. Consequently, I have found it very instructive to try to think about the network and protocols in terms of assets, incentives, costs, and benefits".
On this – we are in total agreement – which is why when I look at what has occurred in SPRING – I find myself getting very depressed.
In order to consider protocols and change in the context of the four criteria you listed – we would need certain information –
- Why do the authors of the disputed draft insist on holding with PSP – what is the substantive use case – I for one – do not believe this has been close to addressed
in light of the fact that there were no less than 4 ways to progress the contentious draft (compromises were offered, everything from, progress the draft with this moved to another document that could be debated, to update the rfc8200) – in every case – the
authors refused to budge
- In order to evaluate benefit you need people who are prepared to state the benefit they see in something – instead we have a document advancing based not on consensus
but on (and I quote) “We had to move this forward” and citing a bunch of people who +1’ed a list in what was in my view a clearly orchestrated +1 campaign as justification for support. I’ll be releasing a rather interesting summary from the lists showing
just how many times the majority of those people have *ever* posted to the lists before – it makes for an interesting read.
- With regards to the costs – without knowing what the real reason for insisting on holding to this – and there must be done considering the dogged way the authors
and the vendor behind this document have insisted on it – without giving proper reasons – this cannot be evaluated.
So – on the basis of the criteria you listed alone – the fact that we are seeing something being railed through a working group – despite substantive – numerous – and unaddressed objections in total violation of the very
concept of consensus – disturbs me greatly. I have always believed that if things like appeals can be avoided – that is always first prize – sadly in this case – we are now forced into an appeal process and we will see how it plays out – but – in light of
all this – I can understand why people on so many lists are questioning what is going on.
Thanks
Andrew
