Well there you hit the problem of the status-quo veto. The most effective
aspect of the IETF constitution is that it is essentially impossible to
overturn the status-quo without arriving at a 'consensus', the existence of
which is judged by the incumbent establishment.
We cannot apparently arrive at a consensus on fixing the three stage standards
track despite the incontrovertible facts that we are not following the three
stage process today and the failure to advance specifications to full standard
is harming the IETF reputation.
Worse than that, we cannot apparently be told who the objectors are or even the
grounds for the objection.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org on behalf of Fred Baker
Sent: Tue 18/03/2008 2:38 AM
To: Lixia Zhang
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing
On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:05 PM, Lixia Zhang wrote:
Call me an idealist:), I personally believe, generally speaking, it
is better to put everything on the table, rather than partial info,
between nomcom and confirming body.
Step up a level: wonder where this discussion is leading to?
Exactly how to revise 3777?
It sounds like you would rather get rid of the nomcom and have the
confirming body do the work from the start.
I have heard it said that the IETF, in the most recent discussion
that failed up update that portion of what we now call 3777, had a
90/10 consensus and didn't come to a perfect consensus. I think we
have to say what the role and reach of the confirming body is, which
may require us to think hard about what it means to have "rough
consensus".
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf