Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis

> > While I agree with that, I suggest that we are in something of a
> > conundrum.  Right now, 2026 is badly out of date in a number of
> > areas.  It reflects procedures and modes that we no longer
> > follow, only a fraction of which are addressed by Eliot's draft.
> > There is general community understanding and acceptance that we
> > are operating, not by the letter of 2026, but by the combination
> > of 2026 and a certain amount of, largely undocumented, oral
> > tradition (I expect to hear from the usual suspects on that
> > assertion, but it is the way it is).  To make things worse, we
> > have some BCPs that effectively amend 2026  but that are not
> > referenced in Eliot's draft -- I've pointed out some of them to
> > him, which I assume will be fixed, but may have missed others.
> If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to be to document
> current practice. I see no chance of making forward progress on actual changes
> without first having a consensus as to what our current state is.
I was just about to reply to John's message saying exactly the same 
thing.  My belief is that any attempt to revise 2026 is likely to 
introduce a kind of second-system effect - there is so much pent-up 
demand for changes to our process that everyone has his own idea about 
how to do it.  The only way we have any hope of getting real consensus 
on a path forward is to first get a shared understanding of where we are 
now.
Keith


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf