Yeah, thanks Martin. The slide has...
==Raising the bar?== Some documents are being pushed to IESG but without any implementation (plan) to support them We are thinking of requiring that at least one implementation exists before handing the document to IESG Thoughts? The first bullet allows for a plan to implement, the second requires implementation. The use of quotes in the second bullet suggests that you may be considering that the requirement may be flexible. Obviously we have an opening for discussion, but I wonder how you would decide when to be flexible. The minutes are a good indication of the level of support you received in the room, but not a deep discussion :-) There seems to be some confusion in the discussion between expediting (or unblocking) I-Ds that have an implementation, and delaying (or blocking) I-Ds that don't have implementations. While, in a world of limited resources, the two things are related, ideally we are not significantly gating the progress of one I-D because we are busy processing another. Now, I really, really support your motivation, viz. to reduce the pointless, unreviewed, unnecessary, or substandard drafts being sent for publication. The question is how to achieve that. Adrian (still thinking about this) > -----Original Message----- > From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux > Sent: 24 November 2015 23:17 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG > last calls > > Hi Adrian, > > indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been > corrected. > > The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg > with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an) > implementation. Or, at least, if every spec gets implemented, it is to > prioritize them. > > The discussion happened at the beginning of the meeting. It was on one > of the slides I have presented as part of the WG status. > > -m > > Le 24/11/2015 17:07, Adrian Farrel a écrit : > > Hi Thomas, > > > > It's really hard to enter this discussion with any context. > > > > Could you post the minutes from the meeting and maybe summarise the points > in > > favour of this approach? > > (Of course, I can listen to the audio when I have some spare time.) > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > BESS mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > > > > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
