Regarding your comment:
Working groups take too long. The IESG often takes too long and ADs often
raise
unexpected and possibly even arbitrary barriers. We have moved to an
enormously
heavyweight model. Timeliness is almost never a factor.
In general I think that there is a lot of truth to this comment. I agree that
Russ' proposal does not fix these problems. However...
What this thinking really does is to take attention away from the actual
barriers, which others have cited at length.
This is where I disagree with you. The simple change that Russ has proposed is
not what is taking away from discussion of the actual barriers. What is taking
attention away from discussion of the actual barriers is the lengthy debate
about Russ's proposed change.
Russ's proposed change is a small step in the right direction. It is not going
to solve all problems (with the IETF process, the Internet, various national
debts, global warming, or <fill in your favorite problem here>). If we want to
solve other more serious problems, then feel free to come up with proposed
solutions. However, blocking one small step in the right direction is not a
productive way to encourage a different larger step in the right direction.
The only way that we can find out whether moving to a two stage process will
help is to try it out. I agree that there is a possibility that we might find
that this causes no real change to the way that standards are done. I don't see
that as such a bad downside. The potential upside is that there may be slightly
more RFCs moved to full standard status.
In my opinion the fact that this very simple and straightforward change draws
such heavy debate is a disincentive to anyone who would propose other
additional changes.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 1:55 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: what is the problem bis
On 10/26/2010 9:32 AM, Ross Callon wrote:
There are two problems that Russ's draft may very well solve: One issue with
our current system is that there is no incentive to go from Proposed Standard
to Draft Standard (since you are only going from one "intermediate state"
short of full standard to another "intermediate state" also short of full
standard).
The theory that this change will create this incentive is exactly what I meant
by charming but unfounded. Really, the premise here is an appealing fantasy.
It
presumes that the extra label imposes a psychological barrier, but there is no
evidence that this is true.
What this thinkin really does is to take attention away from the actual
barriers, which others have cited at length.
Working groups take too long. The IESG often takes too long and ADs often
raise
unexpected and possibly even arbitrary barriers. We have moved to an
enormously
heavyweight model. Timeliness is almost never a factor.
Nothing gets better until that changes.
Another issue is that increasingly each of our standards relies on
multiple other standards, so that RFCs can only move to Draft Standard if
multiple other drafts do also, and it is too much trouble to move multiple
drafts all at the same time.
This, at least, is a pragmatic point. I think there has been little effort to
evaluate it deeply. It might have some benefit; it might not. Where is the
archive of consideration?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf