Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis

-------- Original Message --------

> Hi Keith,
>
> > > 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.
> As I replied to Ned privately, our intent is to go in that direction
> in general.  I believe in Brian Kantor's mantra: document existing 
> practices.  Furthermore, an Internet-Draft without rough consensus of
>  the community is just two opinions.  To that end, I'm putting aside
> my own opinion on a bunch of issues in favor of trying to find that 
> consensus.  I think we should make additional changes to this
> document that reflect reality.  Several of John's suggestions meet
> that criteria.
>
> I could also imagine VERY incremental changes that are agreed to be 
> non-controversial.
this is often how the second-system effect starts, and it nearly always 
works out badly.
> My suggestion is that we first start by getting agreement on the
> changes in the draft that are there, including two-step process Scott
> & I have proposed, which I believe is a compromise between the
> reality of a one step process and some peoples' desires. 
well, I have my own idea about how to revise the standards process, 
which, while not totally dissimilar to yours, is different enough that 
you and I are not likely to be able to agree on a compromise without a 
fair amount of discussion.  and a few dozen other people probably have 
similar ideas.  so no, I don't think that getting agreement on your 
proposal is a good first step.
it's one thing to try to get convergence between different people's 
ideas when there's a vacuum to fill, quite another to  get that 
convergence when there's something already in place and a pent-up desire 
to change it.  if you want an example of the latter, consider the IPng 
effort.  (and for an example of the former, consider the DRUMS WG - 
which was difficult enough as it turned out, but was only made easier by 
the fact that the charter expressly forbid new functionality and the 
chairs could beat people over the heads with that)
Keith

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