The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
of the points provided on the "-discuss" list. There is a tacit
requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.
So, a genuine question: is PESCI blurring lines, or does
this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?
I think *I* have (given up on using the WG process for process evolution). I
am not sure at all that *we* have.
My reasons were pretty well summarized in the Paris plenary discussions
(expecting the IESG to spend significant time on process evolution,
especially when proposals involving major IESG restructuring were on the
I have expressed some of the same concerns on PESCI-discuss that John
included in his note, so I'm not saying that current-PESCI is either perfect
or the only alternative.
Ietf mailing list