It seems to me that this does two things, both small but useful.
1) It makes a minor change in the advancement procedures so that they
are more reasonable. They may still not be sufficiently reasonable to
be used, but it improves them, and thereby improves the odds.
2) It is coupled to an intent to actually behave according to what the
document says. Such an intent is obviously not feasible without some
change. It is useful to have our behavior and our documented
description of how we work match because the mismatch causes confusion,
at least for new participants, and sometimes even for experienced
participants.
It might be the case that it will improve the advancement percentage.
It might not. I can not imagine that it will make that even worse.
So, it seems to me that this matches the description that Eric, Brian,
and others have used of a baby step that is not harmful and may be helpful.
Yours,
Joel
On 7/30/2011 12:55 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 7/28/11 9:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:19 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
1/ I still see no reason to think that this change will cause any
significant change in the percent of Proposed Standards that move up
the
(shorter) standards track since the proposal does nothing to change the
underlying reasons that people do not expend the effort needed to
advance documents
And the real question is, are we moving forward? I think that we are
not moving as far as we originally wanted. However, I offer we are
moving a baby step forward, and as such is worthwhile doing.
On 7/28/11 6:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Let's just make this baby step and stop worrying about it.
Not to pick on Eric and Brian alone; I put this to everyone.
I *really* want an answer to the issue that Scott raises. Eric and Brian
each refer to a "baby step". A baby step toward what exactly?
If the answer is simply, "to align documentation with current
procedure", that's fine, but then I want to know: a) Why is it useful
and positive to line up documentation with current procedure? That is,
what are we gaining by publishing this? and b) This document is
identical to neither 2026 *nor* current procedure, so how is it
accomplishing the goal of aligning with current procedure anyway?
If the answer is, "Yes, this document will cause a change in the percent
of Proposed Standards that move up", then I want to know "How?", because
like Scott, I haven't heard the answer stated in this dicussion.
If you think I've missed an obvious alternative reason to go ahead with
this document, I'm open to hear it, but it sounds like the only two
alternatives expressed so far are, "Document current practice" and
"Improve number of documents moving along standards track", and I
haven't heard how this document does either of those things.
I consider this an open, unaddressed, issue.
pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf