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.
Sigh. Point taken. I retract my previous assessment that this would be a real
step forward.
Either working groups know how to run themselves on a daily basis --
that is, excepting real crises -- or they don't.
Yep.
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.)
Indeed. Past efforts to drag groups out of the weeds have not been all that
successful, have they?
...
What we really need to be is reasonable, open and accountable, with
"local" control for local activities.
Fewer rules, more working group self-management.
Exactly.
Ned
P.S. It really isn't fair that you used the term "Procrustean" - one of my
favorites - to blow away my argument ;-)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf