Re: As Promised, an attempt at 2026bis

On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
> My point here is that the three step process is not used as intended.
> Existing practice clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of our
> work - far more than intended - never reaches beyond PS.  This is
> reality.  Simply documenting that fact in a new RFC2026bis would be to
> say, "Our standards are broken and we know they're broken."  That's not
> what motivated me to write a draft.  What motivated me to write a draft
> was that it's important that we say what we do and we do what we say.
Then write that.  We have a process which defines three stages and what has 
to happen to progress to each stage.  Where reality diverges from RFC2026 
is that 2026 specifies particular timelines for reviewing documents and 
progressing them along the standards track, while what actually happens is 
that documents are progressed only when someone cares enough about them to 
make it happen.  As your graph shows, we published documents at all three 
levels last year.
We could eliminate one or both of the extra steps entirely, or become more 
agressive about actually making them happen, or do any of a wide variety of 
other things to make them happen.  But none of those would be consistent 
with current practice, which is to progress documents beyond PS if and only 
if someone cares enough to make it happen.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf