ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
That said, exceptions should definitely be possible, and I would
delegate that to WG Chair level.
Well, that's a step forward, but instead of delgating an exception process
why not delegate the authority to decide on an appropriate draft handling
policy?
Oddly, I think it really doesn't. By keeping the view that it is an
"exception", it enforces a cumbersome, IETF-wide, Procrustean model with
an exception, rather than a simple model with no need for exceptions.
Either working groups know how to run themselves on a daily basis --
that is, excepting real crises -- or they don't.
If they do. then we do not need one-size-fits-all-except-when-it-doesn't
rules. If they don't, then we need to be much, much better about
writing and enforcing rules. (And all the evidence says that we won't be.)
As of now, we fail to enforce rules that exist and we have enforcement
of rules that don't. The underlying problem is that folks who are
active in the IETF are not really all that fond of following strict rules.
Personally, I think that's a Very Good Thing. However the persistent
Bad Thing is that we keep pretending that we need lots of rules.
What we really need to be is reasonable, open and accountable, with
"local" control for local activities.
Fewer rules, more working group self-management.
Oversight should be just that. And that's quite different from
micro-management.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf