Hi Adrian,
At 01:15 30-01-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I do not take quite the same negative view as Stephen, but I do agree with
Spencer that getting consensus for a process change always looks like a
formidable task. Small changes never address enough of the problem
or the right
piece of the problem. Large changes are too much in one go. :-) So,
it seems to
be increasingly hard to make changes to our process.
It is an unsurmountable task to change anything relating to
process. In a sense the process is built for incremental changes
instead of drastic changes.
On the other hand, IESG statements are fine for declaring how the IESG will
behave, for advising on action within existing parameters, and for emergency
action.
It is easier to wait for an emergency and take action.
So, my conclusion: it would be good to have more process experiments if people
feel the process needs to change. However, it would appear that such
experiments
need:
- Thorough debate on an appropriate mailing list first
Do we need a "process experiments" mailing list?
- Very clear expression of the purpose of the experiment
and how it will be evaluated
- Very tight scoping to a portion of the IETF or of the IETF's
work so that the risk of the experiment simply changing
the IETF's process by default is removed
It is good to see "process experiments" coming from IESG members. I
read it as meaning that those members don't expect the same old
tricks to work forever. "Process experiments" won't get me far
unless I put in the effort to do the work. I will probably sound
cynical; it's unlikely that there will be thorough debate on an
appropriate mailing list. I am not against the idea of setting up a
mailing list though.
Please do not read any of the above as implying that it won't
work. I cannot predict the future. You are better placed than me to
make the decision as you know more than me.
Regards,
-sm