Hi Dave,
On 12/01/2012 10:13 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/1/2012 1:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
What actual problem is this trying to solve? I see the reference to a
'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing
incentive to solve.
I gather this is one of those "everybody knows" problems, where
"everybody knows" that it takes what's perceived as too long to
get documents through the post-wglc/pre-publication process.
Yes. Longstanding opinion held by many folk. Might even be valid.
The problem is a failure to look carefully at wg lifecycle and consider
where meaningful -- as opposed to 'appealing' -- improvements can be made.
At a minimum, any proposal for change should be expected to justify the
specific problem it is claiming to solve --
Disagree. RFC 3933 says:
"A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
desirable but not required..."
There's a reason for that IMO - all proposed process changes seem
to generate *lots* of comment that there's a better problem to
solve elsewhere.
that is, to establish the
context that makes clear the problem is real and serious -- and that the
proposed solution is also likely to have meaningful benefit.
I share the frustration about lengthy standardization, and particularly
with delays at the end. And certainly there is nothing wrong with
adding parallelism where it makes sense.
However absent a consideration of the lifecycle, the current proposal is
a random point change, quite possibly an example of looking for lost
keys under a lamppost because that's where it's easiest to see.
You may be right, I don't make any claim that this is going to
be super-good. OTOH maybe this is worth trying to see if we like
it or not.
Cheers,
S.
There's probably some sort of sympathetic vibe running between
this document and recent discussion of nearly-cooked work being
brought to the IETF for standardization.
rumblings of free-floating dis-ease, perhaps. but are they really related?
If somebody hasn't already documented how long it takes to get
through the various steps once a document is into wglc, it
would be worthwhile to start taking notes.
If a wg takes 2 years to get into wglc, a difference of a month doesn't
matter, does it? That's why I mean about total lifecycle. Otherwise
we're committing the classic system engineering error of inappropriate
local optimization.
d/