Robert Elz wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:46:47 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
| Actually, this document doesn't *need* to contain any rationale.
| The question is whether the community agrees. It doesn't say the IESG;
| it uses the passive tense, and I think evidence for the whole community
| finding it troublesome and contentious is to be found in the IETF mailing
| list archive. Did you think those were useful and edifying discussions?
If the current state is troublesome, a useful step would be to
enumerate the problems, and see if there's a way to fix them.
Only if it seems that the only acceptable solution is to completely
start afresh should that approach be adopted, more frequently some
revision of the process will improve things.
One bit of missing context is that in the General Area open meeting
in Montreal, we did discuss the general issue and Jim Galvin took the
action to follow up with a few interested parties. We don't have a
draft yet, but the idea of the present draft was to fix a couple
of immediate issues, not to be the end of the matter.
On the other hand, contentious can be, and in this case probably is,
a good thing, and is not a rationale for changing anything.
From time to time, any community needs a way to let off steam, and
air all of the grudges. Without that, things just simmer, and
end up getting worse and worse - what's more, with more and more
people getting disillusioned and simply leaving (especially those
who actually do productive work, rather than those who participate
just because it is part of their job description).
In general, at least as things are now, I would prefer that this
current draft simply be dropped, and the current status be retained.
The problem with the current status is that we have no tools
intermediate between 30 days suspension by a WG Chair and
indefinite suspension by PR-action. That gives us a small hammer
and a very big hammer, and nothing for medium size nails.
To change that, at the very least, all of the issues in Ned Freed's
message would need to be dealt with.
Ietf mailing list