Keith, On 2011-07-29 02:20, Keith Moore wrote: > On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 7/28/11 10:03 AM, Eric Burger wrote: >>> And the real question is, are we moving forward? I think that we are >>> not moving as far as we originally wanted. However, I offer we are >>> moving a baby step forward, and as such is worthwhile doing. >> We are more closely aligning our documentation with our organizational >> running code. All other things being equal, that's a good thing. > > Hmm. I've long believed that : > > - trying to document existing practice > - trying to document desirable practice > > are both worthwhile endeavors, as long as you don't try to do both at the > same time. When you try to do both at the same time, there is a conflict. > > If someone wants to write a document that says we generally follow RFC 2026, > except that:
Been there, done that, it sank like a stone. Let's just make this baby step and stop worrying about it. Brian > - drafts hardly ever advance to Draft Standard and even more rarely to Full > Standard, unless there is significant use of the protocol and there are bugs > that need to be fixed (in which case the ability to advance can sometimes > serve as an incentive of sorts) > - we have never been serious about periodic review of standards and we don't > have enough time/energy to do that > - we've never really nailed down what Historic meant, and when it was > appropriate to use it > > etc. > > that would be a fine thing. > > And real changes to the process, say to bring in formal cross review earlier, > to clarify the nature of community consensus and the need for it, etc. might > also be a fine thing. Unfortunately, such discussions are always contentious > and difficult, because they affect the whole community, but they also attract > a lot of interests from individuals with particularly unique axes to grind. > So we keep trying to fix the substantive problems with incremental changes. > I forget who it was who said yesterday that we can't really do that, but I > certainly agree with him. > > Meanwhile, it's not clear to me that simply changing from one document that > we don't strictly follow, to another document that we won't follow much > better, is helpful. And I don't think IETF's problems with standards quality > or process can be addressed merely by changes to the number of maturity > levels. That strikes me as a bit like rearranging deck chairs...it might > make people feel better but is of little consequence. > > In other words, I'm not convinced that this change will do much harm, but I'm > also not convinced that it will help much. And yet we keep flogging this > idea... > > Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
