So, it seems like WG chairs were not very interested in getting help with
early reviews, but I would not say this is necessarily a failure without
giving it more time. It
And therein lies a key point about fixing underlying problems.
We seem to be willing to give unproductive working groups YEARS to fail. We
do not seem to be giving process improvement efforts more than a few MONTHS to
succeed. We do not seem to be willing to work on improving such efforts. We
would rather just declare them failures.
The SIRS design involved iterative review with an IETF working group or
mailing list (I don't remember which) and substantial changes according to the
feedback.
When we started it up it was early in a summer. We got a nice round of
registrations of reviewers, quickly. However by early Fall, senior IETF
participants were declaring it a failure! As I recall, that included Brian.
Eventually the ICAR effort started. It then took a year to re-invent
essentially the same mechanism as SIRS, but with a politically correct
acronym. By that time, it was a nicely marginalized effort, with respect to
other IETF "improvement" efforts.
It went for a few months, didn't show instant success, and was shut down.
1. The demotivating aspects of re-starting essentially the same efforts are
significant. The IETF has become a place that likes (Re-)Design by Committee,
rather than taking an existing, reasonable design and making tweaks to it.
2. The distracting aspects of IETF Management's focus on administration rather
than process semantics are significant.
3. The unwillingness to persist in an effort to improve process semantics
ensures that we will never fix underlying problems.
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