No, it is not an argument for not making any changes. It is,
unfortunately, an argument that any time we look at changing our
process, we really have to look at the potential benefit and the costs
of trying to make the changes.
I agree that a priori there are times when we need to fix the processes.
Sometimes even situations where we realize that major processes need
major overhauls.
My personal read as a participant in this process and debate is that the
benefit of the changes I have seen requested does not rise to meet the
costs of making that level of change. It may be possible to scope the
effort so as to make some improvements, without incurring the full
costs. I don't currently see any way. But then, I could easily be
missing something. And others almost certainly see the values differently.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/16/14, 5:46 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 9/16/2014 2:31 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And from experiences we all have been through, I would stronglye xpect
even more complex and difficult discussions if we open the document up
to substantive changes.
Taken on its face, this appears to be an argument for never making any
changes to any aspect of IETF infrastructure.
The pain level of getting anything in the IETF's infrastructure to be
changed is high enough to make that argument plausible, but of course it
isn't -- or rather, it must not be -- acceptable.
So the question is whether the problems of concern are serious enough to
warrant the very likely (nay, certain) pain?
Or perhaps the question to ask is what specific problems, dangers,
benefits, etc., do folk consider worth working to prevent or ensure?
d/