> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:35PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > Since we're (presumably) trying to write rules that will
> > work when common sense has failed, it seems prudent to have
> > a clear path for disputes of an unknown nature.
> I get the sentiment, and I think it comes from a noble impulse, but I
> think it's a temptation that should be avoided.
Agreed.
> If we get to the point where the IESG, the RFC Editor, and the IAB
> can't among them work out a sensible compromise (because common sense
> has failed), then we have much bigger problems than getting things
> published on the Independent Submissions track.
> Maybe I watched too much _Brazil_ on the weekend, but this all seems
> to me to be the sort of arrangement that can only lead to harm. Given
> the number of iterations the draft has been through, and the volume of
> mail it has attracted, I expect the current form is likely as close to
> good as it will get (since we still have a fail safe: the IAB can put
> a pox on all the houses). But I don't believe solving a problem we
> don't actually have is a good idea.
Exactly my thinking on the matter.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
