+4 and rotfl
Brian
On 2011-09-16 17:17, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to
keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming
and do the same.
1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and change. I have
consulted a textbook on Euclidean geometry and determined that the distance
from level 2 to 1 is shorter than 3 to 1, getting us closer to the actual
location most of us are at (which is of course 1 maturity level).
2) I am strongly opposed to draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01,
because it is far too rational and sane, and would prevent this topic from
continuing forever. Furthermore, I am against any move to 1 maturity level
because apparently there are one or two people with so much free time or
posterity they actually bother moving PS to higher levels these days, and who
are we to squash their hobby/passion/disorder? (In fact, I was almost going
to suggest we go to a 4 or 5 maturity level process just to give these people
more harmless things to do, but I digress...)
3) The IESG should be applauded/thanked for recognizing there is only one
maturity level (PS), and taking the steps necessary to treat potential RFCs
as such from a quality perspective. But they should be denigrated for not
telling us they did that. So they come out even.
4) Regarding the discussion in this thread about what types of comments
should be counted or not: I believe we should produce a new RFC concerning
what response phrases in emails are going to be counted or not for consensus
counting, so that we may know what to say in the future to get our votes
counted. (Of course the big question everyone wants to know is when will
such a new RFC reach the second maturity level?)
-hadriel
p.s. in all seriousness, I'm in favor of this two-maturiy-level draft. I do
not think it is "change for change's sake", but rather a change attempting to
accommodate differing viewpoints of our present location and where we want to
be. If it fails to change the status-quo of 1 level, that's *OK*, we can try
again - the Internet won't collapse because of this document, and neither
will the IETF.
_______________________________________________
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