--On 27. januar 2005 04:57 -0500 John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But this particular reorg process has been characterized by a crisis mentality and a sense of "got to get it done quickly even if it means pushing our procedural boundaries really hard" urgency. That would probably not have been necessary in the presence of a smoothly-functioning secretariat working under a clear and mutually acceptable agreement about responsibilities and authority.
I agree.
That sense of urgency and the associated short deadlines have consumed a good deal of community energy that, IMO, would have been better spent on production of high-quality standards. In general, neither crisis mentalities nor procedural shortcuts lead to carefully thought out and well-reasoned results (I think this process has done amazingly well despite that impediment).
Another reason for pushing for a finish has been the realization that this group, like all IETF groups, IS capable of discussing issues forever, and that we cannot get our energy back until we finish this one.
Conversely, I wish we were able to focus the same level of attention and expedited handling on WG-based standards and other documents.
Yes, and I believe that to some degree, we are..... I am quite happy that the IESG has been able to "keep its nose to the grindstone" and push out almost one document approval per day over the same period as this discussion has been going on...... (15 document approvals and 25 protocol actions since December 6, according to my ietf-announce logs - including the resolution of a few thorny issues of long standing).
But it will be good to get it over with.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
