> I don't see proceeding by small, incremental changes to be a
> problem. Indeed, I usually consider it an advantage as long as
> there is reasonable confidence that the changes that are made
> won't foreclose real solutions later...
This is my understanding of what is proposed.
> ...That risk
--On Thursday, 04 November, 2010 05:50 -0400 Ross Callon
wrote:
> Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010
> 4:18am (and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at
> 4am):
:-)
>> However, a change to the handling of documents that are
>> candidates for Proposed Sta
Commenting on one issue from John's email from Sat 10/30/2010 4:18am
(and ignoring the issue of what John was doing up at 4am):
> However, a change to the handling of documents that are
> candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
> the IESG. In principle, they could announce
On Mon, 2010-11-01, John Leslie wrote:
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> 1) A WG snapshot-like status achieved after agreement by the working
>>group and a posting by the WG chair to IETF-announce notifying the
>>wider community and inviting review (presumably by review teams).
>>Any document m
Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> When I re-write the advance mechanics draft, I will propose something
> along the following lines:
>
> 1) A WG snapshot-like status achieved after agreement by the working
>group and a posting by the WG chair to IETF-announce notifying the
>wider community and invit
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> So is your expectation that if Russ's draft gets published, the bar for PS
> will suddenly drop?
>
> If so, why do we need Russ's draft to begin with? We already have rfc2026.
> Why would a new RFC which says "follow this other RFC" be
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 1:17 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> However, a change to the handling of documents that are
> candidates for Proposed Standard is ultimately in the hands of
> the IESG. In principle, they could announce tomorrow that any
> document submitted for processing after IETF 79 woul
Hi Ted,
I was with your statements all the way to this:
> Russ's draft tries to
> do two things:
>
> Restore the 2026 rules for Proposed as the functionally in-use bar for the
> first rung.
...
What makes you say that?
I read the draft and I don't see it doing that, really. I know it says:
"The
I don't think it's "resistance to changing a process that we are not following"
- I think it's which part of the process we think isn't working, or which part
is IMPORTANT that isn't working.
Going from three steps of which only one step is used, to two steps of which
only one step will be use
Ted,
I agree with almost everything you say, but want to focus on one
issue (inline below).
--On Friday, October 29, 2010 16:15 -0700 Ted Hardie
wrote:
>...
> As we stare down this rathole one more time, let's at least be
> certain that there is more than one rat down there, and be
> realistic
Consensus can be achieved in two ways
The first is that everyone understands the issues in the same way and are
agreed on a common approach.
The second is that people would prefer not to face unfortunate facts and so
they agree to ignore them and get the squeaky wheels to shut up.
Now we could
On 10/29/10 5:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not
following?
I think there's a sentimental attachment to it. That said,
I suppose if I were in your position I'd be asking myself
why I'm still whacking away at the same stuf
uot;IETF"
> > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
> > Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
> ...
> > As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
> > thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
> > th
Hi -
> From: "Ted Hardie"
> To: "IETF"
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM
> Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis)
...
> As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
> thread and there companions, there is
As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this
thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at
the root of all this. One way to draw this is:
Issue: Documents are too slow in achieving the first rung of the
standards process
Contributing issues:
->WG formation
15 matches
Mail list logo