Brian,
1. Apparently you missed the extended, public exchanges about these
issues, over the last 3 years...
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.
I did not say there had been no activity. I said that we had done nothing
about the issues currently under discussion.
So i will ask you and everyone else to consider your list with respect to
quality, timeliness and relevance.
Most of the actions you cite may affect some of the problematic aspects of
timeliness... sometimes. But that is all.
Here's an exercise you might want to consider: Take the list in the Problems
RFC and try to reconcile your list against its.
Tools team ...
Many operational details of document review process ...
These two are about better administration. Improving administrative process
is fine, but has nothing to do with problems in the "semantics" of the
process.
It does not affect quality or relevance. And it does not do much about
timeliness, in terms of making working groups go faster, reducing
inappropriateintentional blocks by ADs, or any of the things that are the meat
of IETF work.
and the General Area review team are operational.
And since it is carefully targeted for the END of the working group effort,
how will this improve quality, timeliness and relevance?
But I, Dave and ICAR blew the early review issue so far.)
Since this was an effort directly targeting quality and timeliness -- and
especially since early reviews seem to have succeeded at gaining IETF rough
consensus as a Good Thing to do -- do you have an theory about the failure to
get this going, or better still, how to get it to succeed?
Education team in place to continuously educate leaders and participants
And you should note that I cited that elsewhere in the thread.
Whether the actual content of the training is likely to have any impact on
quality, timeliness and relevance is worth assessing. Yes, it ought to, but
how are we going to figure out whether it does?
Regular reviews of RFC Editor and IANA performance in place...
New procedures for liaison handling defined...
Administrative support unit being created by ISOC...
And you think these affect core issues of IETF utility to the Internet
community?
You think that these changes will have any effect at all on better IETF
participation or producing timely specifications of better quality and
relevance?
Please explain how.
You might consider using the Problems RFC as a reference guide for directing
such an assessment.
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)
Another derailed activity. Another activity that has nothing to do with
quality, timeliness or relevance.
Go ahead, explain how it does.
Explain how current document labeling practises hurt the IETF's utility to the
Internet community.
Explain how the utility of the IETF to the community will be improved by our
fixing this.
Brian, we need to distinguish activity from progress.
We need to look for the issues that are at the core of the IETF's
problems.
As I said, in the last 3+ years, we have mostly chosen not to do
that.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf