Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dave Crocker wrote: > ... > > The only way to make sure deliveries of product -- in this case, IETF > > documents -- are timely is to decide when they are needed by and set firm > > deadlines. The IETF currently does not do that. Instead, we leave > > everything > > open-ended.
> I'm very curious how one can set rigid deadlines and simultaneously > require open debate to converge to a rough consensus before those > deadlines. One can't. That is what (at least some people) don't seem willing to admit. If you want a quality document (and producing readable/implementable documents is a key IETF deliverable), there is no substitute for the review/iterate cycle I mentioned in an earlier message. Any attempt to eliminate or otherwise cut short that cycle will lead to a loss in quality. While we can (and should) debate about the proper balance between quality and timeliness, focusing only on timeliness risks undermining a core IETF strength. That doesn't mean there is no hope, however. What we should collectively be working on is making the review/iterate cycle work more efficiently and with fewer "dead time" delays, i.e., work hard on eliminating "dead time" where the "token holders" of a document (whether reviewers, editors or someone else) are not actually delivering on their part in a reasonable amount of time. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
