Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> writes:
What it requires is that people who want all their pet changes to go
into a draft to simply show some discipline and accept that not
everything will be fixed at once. Current practice is a ONE STEP
process that is NOT documented. Your and others' obstruction brings us
to a place where nothing moves forward and we are left in an ossified
state. Rough consensus and running code. Well running code requires
that we document what works. Rough consensus requires that people come
to agreements, likely through compromises. Right now we have neither.
Let me just observe that the above sort of "you're with us or against
us" language is deeply poisoning to making progress on this overall
topic. It's divisive, and it is a cheap substitute for real discussion
of substance/issues.
I can tell you that I personally am very interested/concerned about
process improvements. But since I was once part of the "big bad
self-serving IESG", who are regularly blamed by some for all the
failures to make progress here, I have been loath to get involved. I
know that it is pretty much inevitable that I will be tarred with the
same brush at some point. When I ask myself "do I really want to deal
with this?", the answer so far has been "no, I have plenty of other
things I'd rather do." That does not mean I don't care deeply about
the topic, however.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf