+4 and rotfl Brian
On 2011-09-16 17:17, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to > keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming > and do the same. > > 1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and change. I have > consulted a textbook on Euclidean geometry and determined that the distance > from level 2 to 1 is shorter than 3 to 1, getting us closer to the actual > location most of us are at (which is of course 1 maturity level). > > 2) I am strongly opposed to draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01, > because it is far too rational and sane, and would prevent this topic from > continuing forever. Furthermore, I am against any move to 1 maturity level > because apparently there are one or two people with so much free time or > posterity they actually bother moving PS to higher levels these days, and who > are we to squash their hobby/passion/disorder? (In fact, I was almost going > to suggest we go to a 4 or 5 maturity level process just to give these people > more harmless things to do, but I digress...) > > 3) The IESG should be applauded/thanked for recognizing there is only one > maturity level (PS), and taking the steps necessary to treat potential RFCs > as such from a quality perspective. But they should be denigrated for not > telling us they did that. So they come out even. > > 4) Regarding the discussion in this thread about what types of comments > should be counted or not: I believe we should produce a new RFC concerning > what response phrases in emails are going to be counted or not for consensus > counting, so that we may know what to say in the future to get our votes > counted. (Of course the big question everyone wants to know is when will > such a new RFC reach the second maturity level?) > > -hadriel > > p.s. in all seriousness, I'm in favor of this two-maturiy-level draft. I do > not think it is "change for change's sake", but rather a change attempting to > accommodate differing viewpoints of our present location and where we want to > be. If it fails to change the status-quo of 1 level, that's *OK*, we can try > again - the Internet won't collapse because of this document, and neither > will the IETF. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
