I don't think it's "resistance to changing a process that we are not following"
- I think it's which part of the process we think isn't working, or which part
is IMPORTANT that isn't working.
Going from three steps of which only one step is used, to two steps of which
only one step will be used, isn't helpful.
It's like the old metaphor of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's
not the critical problem. And it wastes time/energy from either fixing the
leak or getting in lifeboats.
-hadriel
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Well I for one would prefer to call the IESG's bluff than spend five minutes
proposing taking HTTP to STANDARD.
We are clearly not following the process and have not been doing for ten
years. I don't think there is anyone who is even claiming the the process is
viable.
So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not
following?
Fear of unspecified bad happenings is not a justification. There are plenty
of standards organizations that can manage to do this. If the doomsday people
are so worried about the possibility of something bad then we should adopt a
process from W3C or ITU or OASIS that is proven to work.
So in my view there are two options
1) Adopt Russ's proposal to change the process documentation to reflect
reality
2) Admit that we don't understand process and choose a process from some
other group.
My preference would be for the first option. But if people are really serious
in their belief that there could be something really bad from tinkering with
this that would argue for #2.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf