John C Klensin wrote:
Brian,
Let me make this short enough to encourage easy reading when you
wake up...
--On Wednesday, 26 October, 2005 15:06 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
And I really don't see the value of cross-posting when the
pesci-discuss list exists for exactly this discussion.
Much of the discussion has moved to that list. However...
To the extent to which there is a serious concern that the
operation of PESCI and the pesci-discuss list are an abuse of
process, the IETF list is exactly the right place to have that
particular discussion.
So I will respond here.
1. How can there possibly be an abuse of process when there is
no proposal on the table yet? If we succeed in forging some degree
of consensus about a set of principles, then will be the time
to apply due process to test for rough consensus in the IETF.
We could do that by forming a WG or we could do it by the non-WG
route, in full accordance with RFC 2026 process.
2. This thread, and its spin-offs on the pesci-discuss list,
neatly illustrate the exact problem I hope PESCI can resolve.
We (and that is inclusive) repeatedly fall into a very trivial
recursion on "what is the process for changing the process;
we need a process for that; what is the process for...?" My
desired output from PESCI is a set of principles to get us out
of that recursion.
What I think is more important is just that - a tight focus
on sifting and agreeing on that set of principles.
I do understand all the arguments and concerns, but we need
to get ourselves out of that recursive loop.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf