One point of clarification: I'm not attempting to rip-and-replace
anything. I wrote this up so I could easily describe the direction I'd
like to see things go. In other words, consider it more of an Op-Ed than
a formal proposal. I will be writing up a series of Pace's that can be
discussed for the -07 draft and beyond based on this write up.
- James
Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
However, I suggest we really don't know where consensus lies. In
recent weeks, we've had a substantial number of Paces posted, quite a
few of them plausible, and a mind-boggling amount of discussion about
them. The first step is for your luckless co-chairs to go through that
discussion and see if there are any obvious consensus calls that can be
made without even formally scheduling stuff.
Now, it's perfectly OK to make proposals on re-organizing the draft to
improve it. But at this point it seems out of line to abandon our
process, which is showing signs of bearing fruit.
+1
-1 to this draft. I observe we've been through this with other
experimental drafts and wholesale rewrites already. My opinion is this
approach does not work. Draft06 is being sent to IETF next week once the
moratorium has been lifted and draft07 is being worked up. I suggest
anyone who's serious about the standards track focus their efforts
there. Iterating and improving the standards track document is evidently
a superior approach than rip and replace.
cheers
Bill
