I would like to support Brian's point that we have actually
done quite a lot in recent years to improve the IETF. Not
saying that we shouldn't do more -- we really need to -- but at
least from my perspective there has been a significant,
observable change for the better.
--Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years. I am not suggesting anything new or
different, merely observing that we have done not one thing to attend
to them.
That's pretty unfair to my predecessor and his colleagues.
Here's a quick list of things that have been done. It's written in
somewhat high
level terms, but there is substance behind each of these items. It
doesn't
mean that we're done or that we're complacent, but accusing ourselves of
inaction is plain wrong.
Tools team in place to specify and help provide or enhance various
efficiency tools
Many operational details of document review process have been and will
be improved
(in other words, the ID tracker is being constantly improved; the PROTO
shepherding system and the General Area review team are operational.
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants
Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place
New procedures for liaison handling defined
Administrative support unit being created by ISOC
(the IAOC is up and running and the IAD hiring process is
moving right along)
Proposals for upgrading/streamlining standards track in discussion
(i.e. newtrk and specifically the ISD proposal, but there's
certainly more to do in newtrk)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf