Well I for one would prefer to call the IESG's bluff than spend five minutes
proposing taking HTTP to STANDARD.
We are clearly not following the process and have not been doing for ten
years. I don't think there is anyone who is even claiming the the process is
viable.
So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not
following?
Fear of unspecified bad happenings is not a justification. There are plenty
of standards organizations that can manage to do this. If the doomsday
people are so worried about the possibility of something bad then we should
adopt a process from W3C or ITU or OASIS that is proven to work.
So in my view there are two options
1) Adopt Russ's proposal to change the process documentation to reflect
reality
2) Admit that we don't understand process and choose a process from some
other group.
My preference would be for the first option. But if people are really
serious in their belief that there could be something really bad from
tinkering with this that would argue for #2.
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com
wrote:
Hi -
From: "Ted Hardie" <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
To: "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
...
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
the root of all this. One way to draw this is:
...
I wonder whether our collective non-enforcement of the last
paragraph of RFC 2026 section 6.2 has also contributed to this mess.
When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet
Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for
twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter
until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of
the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the
usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG
shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort,
at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification
at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This
decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the
IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an
opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a
legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an
administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort.
Our current way of doing business has only a few wilted carrots
and no sticks to goad advancement efforts.
Randy
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf