ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [saag] Last Call: Recognising RFC1984 as a BCP

2015-08-14 08:04:04
I think Pete has it.  

"documents, like football game plans, are not easily drafted in a stadium, with 
thousands of very interested fans participating, each with their own red 
pencil, trying to reach a consensus on every word.”  - J.Postel


manning
bmanning(_at_)karoshi(_dot_)com
PO Box 6151
Playa del Rey, CA 90296
310.322.8102






On 14August2015Friday, at 5:07, Stephen Farrell 
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:


Hi Pete,

On 13/08/15 22:31, Pete Resnick wrote:
It should take all of an hour to rewrite this into a draft that doesn’t
sound like a joint opinion of the leadership. 

I think it's really great that someone can actively participate in
the IETF for many years and serve terms on the IAB and IESG and still
produce statements like that that are a real masterpiece of unfounded
but boundless optimism and naivety:-)

While it might only take one person one hour to craft new text,
that is utterly irrelevant here, sort of like saying that doing a
hard thing is easy because all you have to do is start.

I think it's been said before but the answer to you (with which
I know you disagree) is that the resulting text wouldn't really be
any better, that it'd take an awful lot more than an hour's effort
(as folks just would not resist the temptation to add/change/etc
once text is open for edits), that we would lose what some people
consider a benefit in affirming the existing text, and that we'd
be doing all of that for what are in the end process-minutiae
reasons.

And yes, I know you think there is a distinction that needs to be
made there and (after we IM'd) I know you know (and disagree with) at
least the arguments I've seen/made against that, so I'm pretty sure
we do understand one another, and, should the eventual outcome of
all of this be that we do make this status change in-place, that
it'll be safe to say your preferred approach was considered but
not adopted.

S.