On 7/5/2010 10:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2010-07-06 08:49, SM wrote:
Although the IETF Chair is also an IETF participant, it can be
perceived as problematic when the person writes a non-technical proposal
that has to be evaluated by the IESG.
It could be, but if the proposal is a matter of common sense and
blindingly obvious simplification, it isn't, IMHO. Let's just do it;
there is no down side. There may be many other issues, as suggested
by John, but this simplification can only help everybody.
Brian,
I agree that there seems to be quite a bit of blindness in the way this is being
discussed. This is something for which there is no urgency, and about both the
needs and the benefits being offered are squishy, at best. Added to this is
unfortunately strong resistance to serious discussion and consideration of
concerns and questions being raised.
The assertion that it is possible to take a core construct that has been in
place for 20 years, and that making a change that is certain to have no
downsides, is an example of the problem in the current process.
This sort of change has costs. /ANY/ change has costs. It does not necessarily
have any benefits. At the least, there should be careful attention to the
implementation effort and the potential impact on community use of labels.
Also at the least, folks who are promoting this need to produce a compelling
benefit statement. So far, that's lacking.
d/
ps. SM raises a concern that falls under the category of conflict of interest.
This is something that does not require bad intent or bad action; it merely
requires potentially competing goals (interests). Having a proposal's proponent
also be in charge of a proposal's approval is the essence of conflict of interest.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf