ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

2008-09-22 09:15:24


Spencer Dawkins wrote:
While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a set of rules.
...
On this particular topic, I've been really dismayed that we've gotten so far into the weeds on what was obviously (to me) an attempt to do the right thing - provide example domain names - that is now morphing into a set of rules.


+1

Perhaps the most important lesson from the last few years of diligent effort to create and write detailed rules is to make clear that that is not where IETF problems reside.

Yes, we need good documentation. Far better than we used to have. But that does not mean that the documents need to list microscopic rules.

The reality we have seen is that folks don't remember the rules, don't follow the fine-grained details and the details from one rule to the next are starting to conflict.

What we need are documents that define scope, goals, principals, and the like.

The application of these more-basic constructs needs to demonstrate careful thought and compelling need. And they need to demonstrate it with careful documentation.

Note a continuing disparity: What is significant about documentation of a decision for an appeal is that they usually are careful to describe the situation and careful to provide the basis for the decision. Publicly.

This is in marked contrast the handling of something like a Discuss. Much more modest requirements for documentation and publication.

So...

Fewer rules.  More concepts and rationale.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>