I think this experiment is a good idea.
While we have discussed throwing out the whole structure, we have not
agreed to do so. (I happen to not like the 1-step proposals, but
that is not the point.)
Whether we eventually throw out the whole thing or not, in teh mean
time this improves our current procedures in a sensible fashion.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:20 AM 6/12/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
C. M. Heard wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Eric Rosen wrote:
There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment
disheartening.
For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our
processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the downref rule
or we don't. If we want to experiment, let's experiment with eliminating
the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it.
The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards
process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the
current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but
a distraction.
For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so
stated on the newtrk mailing list).
I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above sentiments
(i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so, before
the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do* agree are welcome
to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very hard to
judge whether silence means consent.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf