[[ I'm not picking on John: I could have sent this reply to any of the messages
on the thread. ]]
At 2:27 PM -0400 5/28/09, John C Klensin wrote:
our categories of Proposed/
Draft/ Full Standard, BCP, Experimental, Informational, and
perhaps FYI are not well-suited to all of the documents
circumstances we regularly encounter
Of course. This is clear to folks at all levels of experience in the IETF.
and that it is time to
review and revise those categories.
...and expect a different outcome than our most recent attempts? The previous
attempts did not fail for lack of participation from enough concerned people,
nor from the lack of workable ideas: they failed due to lack of energetic
agreement.
A different idea is for the IETF Leadership to say "in May 2011, we will start
the Newtrack++ effort, and we won't start it before then". In every troublesome
case in the next two years, the IETF community agrees to do a group shrug, make
notes, and move on. Two years from now, those whose shoulders do not hurt from
too much shrugging can make another run at fixing the process.
Permanent repetitive process work does not lead to good results for the
organization or for the individuals who get wrapped up in the work.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf