I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to 
keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming and 
do the same.

1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and change.  I have consulted 
a textbook on Euclidean geometry and determined that the distance from level 2 
to 1 is shorter than 3 to 1, getting us closer to the actual location most of 
us are at (which is of course 1 maturity level).  

2) I am strongly opposed to draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01, because 
it is far too rational and sane, and would prevent this topic from continuing 
forever.  Furthermore, I am against any move to 1 maturity level because 
apparently there are one or two people with so much free time or posterity they 
actually bother moving PS to higher levels these days, and who are we to squash 
their hobby/passion/disorder?  (In fact, I was almost going to suggest we go to 
a 4 or 5 maturity level process just to give these people more harmless things 
to do, but I digress...)

3) The IESG should be applauded/thanked for recognizing there is only one 
maturity level (PS), and taking the steps necessary to treat potential RFCs as 
such from a quality perspective.  But they should be denigrated for not telling 
us they did that.  So they come out even.

4) Regarding the discussion in this thread about what types of comments should 
be counted or not: I believe we should produce a new RFC concerning what 
response phrases in emails are going to be counted or not for consensus 
counting, so that we may know what to say in the future to get our votes 
counted.  (Of course the big question everyone wants to know is when will such 
a new RFC reach the second maturity level?)

-hadriel

p.s. in all seriousness, I'm in favor of this two-maturiy-level draft.  I do 
not think it is "change for change's sake", but rather a change attempting to 
accommodate differing viewpoints of our present location and where we want to 
be.  If it fails to change the status-quo of 1 level, that's *OK*, we can try 
again - the Internet won't collapse because of this document, and neither will 
the IETF.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Reply via email to