Hi.
I gave a presentation at genarea today and commented that I strongly
felt like giving up on any participation in process change efforts as
a lost cause.
I want to explain what is frustrating me and to explain what is not frustrating
me.
Several people said that I need to get more review of my draft.
That's reasonable and I'll work on that. I admit significant
frustration that concerns about lack of review were not raised during
last call. However that's par for the course; last call comments
including recommendations for more review come in up to the point that
a document is approved and we're all used to that.
Also, if people believed that the basic approach I'm
taking--delegating power to the IESG--was wrong, that would be fine.
People disagree with each other all the time.
What I am frustrated by is that it looks like we're headed for the
same sort of deadlock that we've had with all the process proposals.
I suspect that I can get my draft published and that it will not be
too difficult to do so.
However I don't think we're building the sort of community consensus
behind RFC 3933 as an approach to breaking process reform deadlock
that it will actually be useful to us. What happens when John submits
his nomcom proposal as an RFC 3933 experiment? Would there be any
plausable way he could move forward on that proposal using RFC 3933?
If the answer is that RFC 3933 is not the solution, then what is? We
did not have consensus behind pesci at IETF 64.We've not had consensus
behind what process priorities were appropriate in other cases.
So, I'm close to concluding that we don't have mechanisms for getting
consensus on larger process changes and that perhaps the right
approach is to just move on with our existing processes. They mostly
work after all.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf