But, more to the point, I am referring to the general reticence of
non-IETF groups to use the IETF methods and processes in their own
work related to developing standards for code for use on the Internet.
However, I know of a few others that have adopted the IETF WG
processes, and I consider this a good thing to be happening. In
fact, I strongly encourage it.
And even lead the charge from time to time.
stef - historically, the ietf process worked because it was well-suited to
the competence of the personalities involved. adopting ietf-like processes
may be necessary, but it isn't sufficient, unless, of course, adopting
ietf-like processes introduces a darwinian selection for the historical
ietf-like personalities. ymmv.
mo and lloyd have made several cogent arguments explaining the current
disconnect, viz. the opes stuff. of course, opes isn't to blame, per se,
this is just the latest instance of a mismatch of expectations. perhaps, as
noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were chartered to do
requirements documents instead of protocol documents. perhaps the problem is
even earlier...
/mtr