[[ I'm not picking on John: I could have sent this reply to any of the messages on the thread. ]]
At 2:27 PM -0400 5/28/09, John C Klensin wrote: >our categories of Proposed/ >Draft/ Full Standard, BCP, Experimental, Informational, and >perhaps FYI are not well-suited to all of the documents >circumstances we regularly encounter Of course. This is clear to folks at all levels of experience in the IETF. > and that it is time to >review and revise those categories. ...and expect a different outcome than our most recent attempts? The previous attempts did not fail for lack of participation from enough concerned people, nor from the lack of workable ideas: they failed due to lack of energetic agreement. A different idea is for the IETF Leadership to say "in May 2011, we will start the Newtrack++ effort, and we won't start it before then". In every troublesome case in the next two years, the IETF community agrees to do a group shrug, make notes, and move on. Two years from now, those whose shoulders do not hurt from too much shrugging can make another run at fixing the process. Permanent repetitive process work does not lead to good results for the organization or for the individuals who get wrapped up in the work. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
