Re: "Discuss" criteria

I agree with your points here, and I think it points up something I  
have been feeling about this and not putting words to.
I really don't think the issue is whether it is a web page, an I-D,  
an RFC, or something else. The point is that we need a document  
process that will allow people to put things in and have them come  
out the other end in a predictable time period, or remain in the  
intermediate state if they are being actively developed. Inventing a  
new document format feels to me like putting a bandaid on the  
problem, rather than dealing with the root cause, the latter being  
that we are becoming so process-bound that we don't actually get  
things done.
We can discuss separately whether this ION thing is worthwhile.  
Personally, I would prefer to get the hard discussions and decisions  
done, which are those that get us out of this legalistic process  
nonsense.

On Dec 28, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > Yes, http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html
> > is the "random web page" version that I anticipate will become
> > an ION. This is a very good illustration of
> > a) something that needs to be accessible without an arbitrary
> > 6 month expiry
> > b) needs to evolve
> > c) needs some minimal level of approval
> > d) is only relevant to the IETF's internal operations
> Brian,
>
> Your (a) criterion applies to to anything that is formally under  
> development. The real requirement is to produce a stable version  
> and get it approved and published, rather than have it languish in  
> development. That is, after all, why I-Ds were given a time-out.   
> What is remaining, in order to get the draft approved, to apply to  
> Discuss votes?
> Your (b) criterion implies some sort of expected high rate of  
> change, if there is a legitimate need for a streamlined publication  
> mechanism. Yet the metabolic rate for considering and stabilizing  
> and approving the current draft is quite a long way from satisfying  
> that requirement. For that matter, do we really want internal  
> procedures to be changing that rapidly?
> Your (c) criterion implies that a BCP-like mechanism is not  
> acceptable.  Here, the difference between BCP -- with its IETF-wide  
> appoval -- versus ION -- with is IESG approval -- is at least an  
> interesting distinction.  On the other hand, this particular draft  
> is, if anything, likely to demonstrate why IETF-wide approval is a  
> particularly good idea, since its goal is to hold IESG members  
> accountable to more stringent criteria than are currently in force  
> for blocking approval of working group output. In addition the  
> particular criteria listed in the -discuss draft contain a number  
> of items that reasonably could be viewed as too stringent, too  
> lenient, too vague, too low-level, or the like.  The public process  
> of gaining community consensus seems important for the credibility  
> of the IETF process.
> That leaves your (d) criterion, which was where the suggestion for  
> a new RFC label came from, rather than the creation of an entirely  
> new publication mechanism.
> But the most important issue is probably getting the document  
> reviewed, approved, and applied, no matter what publication  
> mechanism is.
> d/
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf