Well I for one would prefer to call the IESG's bluff than spend five minutes proposing taking HTTP to STANDARD.
We are clearly not following the process and have not been doing for ten years. I don't think there is anyone who is even claiming the the process is viable. So why is there so much resistance to changing a process that we are not following? Fear of unspecified bad happenings is not a justification. There are plenty of standards organizations that can manage to do this. If the doomsday people are so worried about the possibility of something bad then we should adopt a process from W3C or ITU or OASIS that is proven to work. So in my view there are two options 1) Adopt Russ's proposal to change the process documentation to reflect reality 2) Admit that we don't understand process and choose a process from some other group. My preference would be for the first option. But if people are really serious in their belief that there could be something really bad from tinkering with this that would argue for #2. On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Randy Presuhn <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi - > > > From: "Ted Hardie" <[email protected]> > > To: "IETF" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 4:15 PM > > Subject: No single problem... (was Re: what is the problem bis) > ... > > As is moderately obvious from the stream of commentary on this > > thread and there companions, there is no *one* problem at > > the root of all this. One way to draw this is: > ... > > I wonder whether our collective non-enforcement of the last > paragraph of RFC 2026 section 6.2 has also contributed to this mess. > > When a standards-track specification has not reached the Internet > Standard level but has remained at the same maturity level for > twenty-four (24) months, and every twelve (12) months thereafter > until the status is changed, the IESG shall review the viability of > the standardization effort responsible for that specification and the > usefulness of the technology. Following each such review, the IESG > shall approve termination or continuation of the development effort, > at the same time the IESG shall decide to maintain the specification > at the same maturity level or to move it to Historic status. This > decision shall be communicated to the IETF by electronic mail to the > IETF Announce mailing list to allow the Internet community an > opportunity to comment. This provision is not intended to threaten a > legitimate and active Working Group effort, but rather to provide an > administrative mechanism for terminating a moribund effort. > > Our current way of doing business has only a few wilted carrots > and no sticks to goad advancement efforts. > > Randy > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
