Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> writes:
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The only way to make sure deliveries of product -- in this case, IETF
documents -- are timely is to decide when they are needed by and set firm
deadlines. The IETF currently does not do that. Instead, we leave
everything
open-ended.
I'm very curious how one can set rigid deadlines and simultaneously
require open debate to converge to a rough consensus before those
deadlines.
One can't. That is what (at least some people) don't seem willing to
admit. If you want a quality document (and producing
readable/implementable documents is a key IETF deliverable), there is
no substitute for the review/iterate cycle I mentioned in an earlier
message.
Any attempt to eliminate or otherwise cut short that cycle will lead
to a loss in quality. While we can (and should) debate about the
proper balance between quality and timeliness, focusing only on
timeliness risks undermining a core IETF strength.
That doesn't mean there is no hope, however. What we should
collectively be working on is making the review/iterate cycle work
more efficiently and with fewer "dead time" delays, i.e., work hard on
eliminating "dead time" where the "token holders" of a document
(whether reviewers, editors or someone else) are not actually
delivering on their part in a reasonable amount of time.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf