--On 27. januar 2005 04:57 -0500 John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a
crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even
if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard"
urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the
presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a
clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities
That sense of urgency and the associated short
deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that,
IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality
standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor
procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and
well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly
well despite that impediment).
Another reason for pushing for a finish has been the realization that this
group, like all IETF groups, IS capable of discussing issues forever, and
that we cannot get our energy back until we finish this one.
Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of
attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other
Yes, and I believe that to some degree, we are..... I am quite happy that
the IESG has been able to "keep its nose to the grindstone" and push out
almost one document approval per day over the same period as this
discussion has been going on...... (15 document approvals and 25 protocol
actions since December 6, according to my ietf-announce logs - including
the resolution of a few thorny issues of long standing).
But it will be good to get it over with.
Ietf mailing list