--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 13:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of
comments on that draft that everyone agrees that it
correctly describes current practice? If so, I'll look for
an AD to sponsor it.
Brian,
As I suggested at the Montreal plenary, I believe that the
majority of the community has reached a state of exhaustion on
all but the most critical and pressing process issues (and maybe
on those). If that hypothesis is correct, real consensus
(positive or negative) about such proposals is likely to be
impossible. The folks who still care about process issues and
are not burned out will speak up and the folks who are afraid of
unintended consequences despite being exhausted will speak up
(but perhaps only on Last Call). The vast majority of the
community will be silent, not because they are not impacted or
don't care (although some will fall into both of those
categoris) but, for the rest, because of general exhaustion with
one process battle after another.
The reactions to both Eliot's and Scott's 2026bis draft
(in-depth comments and discussion from the usual process
activists, plus comments from others when something they
consider outrageous is said) and to your 2026 critique (mostly
silence) could be attributed, not to agreement by everyone else,
but to that exhaustion factor.
Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the
community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more of
these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to determine
the degree to which the community just does not want to deal
with these issues for a while.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf