Dave,
So I hope that the energy you folk are currently putting into arguing about
process formalities can instead be channeled into
the substance of the draft.
I don't care about the formalities. I care about the fact that I can't
understand in detail from the draft what it intends to change in the way
WGs operate and, incidentally, what text in RFC 2418 is wrong in practice.
Speaking for myself, I could never accede to a consensus on this draft
without that understanding. You want me to "react to it in its entirety."
My reaction is that I don't understand what problems it fixes.
Now I have a rotten track record in this area. About ten years ago I
wanted to trigger an update of RFC 2026, and decided that the way to do
it was to write a careful analysis of its defects. I won't bore everybody
with the details, but basically I failed. I think the reason I failed
was because my analysis was just Too Much Information. Subsequent reformers
have done better by fixing one thing at a time, but RFC 2026 is even less
a description of what we actually do now than it was 10 years ago.
For anybody who thinks this is all very simple, please review
http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html
Oh, and to be clear: thanks for working on this. It does matter.
Regards
Brian