Ted,
I agree with almost everything you say, but want to focus on one
issue (inline below).
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 16:15 -0700 Ted Hardie
<ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
...
As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be
certain that there is more than one rat down there, and be
realistic about the energy we have on how many we can tackle.
Russ's draft tries to do two things:
Restore the 2026 rules for Proposed as the functionally in-use
bar for the first rung.
...
Listening to the discussion, I think we have focused a great
deal on point two, but have either not really noticed point
one or didn't believe it. I think this addresses a
marketing problem (long an issue, though now commonly
explained away) and it focuses on the first two "resulting
issues" in the quasi-chart above, and thus may have some
cascade effects on the other two. It doesn't tackle any of
the contributing issues, but this is not really a defect in my
eyes, as those can't really be addressed by document issues.
Are there other ways to tackle this? Sure. But if the
community accepts that this restores the 2026 bar for the
first rung *and holds the IESG to it*, then I think this is
one useful place to tug on the tangle of issues.
Noticed. I probably fall into the "don't believe" category, but
for a reason I've tried to identify before.
I recognize (and have commented on) the issue of how the IESG
gets sufficient community support for changing Proposed Standard
criteria back to what 2026 says and how a transition would
occur. Some relabeling might be useful in that regard but
perhaps not useful enough to be worth the trouble. The current
document does not propose to change the name of "Proposed
Standard", so that is a non-issue at present.
However, a change to the handling of documents that are
candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
the IESG. In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any
document submitted for processing after IETF 79 would be
evaluated against the criteria in 2026 and no others other than
reasonable document clarity. If the IESG has the will --and
whatever community backing is needed-- to do that, then the
"two-step" document is not needed. If the IESG does not have
that will and backing, then community of the "two-step" document
would merely leave us --as far as this issue/problem is
concerned-- with one more set of rules we aren't following.
So, if we are serious about changing (or reverting) those
criteria, then let the IESG issue a statement about the new
rules, schedule, and any transition plan. Let's see if such a
statement is successfully appealed by someone (I'd hope, given
the concerns on this list about the problem, that wouldn't
happen). And then let's see if we can actually do it.
There is lots of time to change the written procedures if such
an effort works, even experimentally. After all, we've been out
of synch with 2026 for 14 years now and it hasn't shut us down.
best,
john
p.s. I also believe that, if part of the intent of the
"two-step" document is to restore that bar, it is _very_ hard to
deduce that from the document itself. I'd feel better about the
document if that were more clear. But the document is really
not the issue, the strategy is. At least IMO.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf