John C Klensin wrote:
From my place in the galleries, it appears to me that there have been
a very small number of attempts to assert the 3683 mechanism. Each
has resulted in a firestorm of debate that has arguably caused far
more traffic, noise, and disruption to the relevant mailing lists
than the individual who was contemplated to be banned. Control
mechanisms that are intended to protect mailing lists from disruption
but that cause far more disruption than they cure...
John,
I'd like to see the protracted mailing list exchanges on this go away,
too.
However I do not believe that their occurrence has anything at all to do
with what rules we have in place.
This particular topic is merely one instance of a larger pattern.
The pattern on this list is that folks will endlessly respond to any
sort of critical statement -- no matter that it has no visible support
-- or any sort of assertion of authority, rather than pursue
constructive dialogue about making changes and reaching consensus on
them. In other words, this list prefers to discuss process rather than
perform useful work.
Hence, my focus is entirely upon anything that will place less load on
the IESG, and therefore:
I believe that we should ultimately end up with a mechanism that is
3683-like, but that uses some community mechanism for review that
does not put the IESG and an IETF-list debate into the critical path.
Then that is the proposal that should be pursued. Any other change is
just moving deck chairs.
Again:
The process we have is exercised rarely and well. I have not seen
any statements to the contrary.
Excessive discussion on the IETF list does not get changed by
changing the process; it gets changed by the exercise of self-discipline
among IETF mailing list participants. A bogus posting warrants silence,
not defensive response.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf