On Mar 8, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
That is also a part of the ION concept: *Public*, *documented*,
and *binding* rules without the need to track down obscure IAB
pages, IESG minutes, or recent change patrol in a wgchairs wiki.
I agree with the desire, and we have discussed
John C Klensin wrote:
> Several of us have observed that the IETF is not very good at
> writing precise procedural rules. Some of us would even claim
> that history shows that we are fairly poor.
You could say roughly the same about the IETF not being as good
as it should at producing valid AB
--On Saturday, 08 March, 2008 18:13 +0100 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (quibble - I call the BCPs that describe the principles for
> the process "process" documents, so I'd say that BCPs are
> probably the wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and
> publishing *proced
John C Klensin skrev:
>
> Some of this points out, once again, that BCPs are probably the
> wrong mechanism for reaching consensus on and publishing process
> documents, regardless of what we do with IONs.
>
> Should we keep IONs and, if so, should we keep them in their
> present form or so some tu
Hi.
After reading both the "IONs and discuss..." thread and last
month's discussion about the ION Experiment and RFC 4693, I want
to repeat something that at least some of us discussed
extensively during the NEWTRK period (and maybe the POISSON
period before that). Part of this has been said in t
