Hi Dave,
On 12/01/2012 10:13 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> On 12/1/2012 1:00 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> What actual problem is this trying to solve? I see the reference to a
>>> 'reward', but wasn't aware that there is a perceived problem needing
>>> incentive to solve.
>>
>> I gather this is one of those "everybody knows" problems, where
>> "everybody knows" that it takes what's perceived as too long to
>> get documents through the post-wglc/pre-publication process.
>
>
> Yes. Longstanding opinion held by many folk. Might even be valid.
>
> The problem is a failure to look carefully at wg lifecycle and consider
> where meaningful -- as opposed to 'appealing' -- improvements can be made.
>
> At a minimum, any proposal for change should be expected to justify the
> specific problem it is claiming to solve --
Disagree. RFC 3933 says:
"A statement of the problem expected to be resolved is
desirable but not required..."
There's a reason for that IMO - all proposed process changes seem
to generate *lots* of comment that there's a better problem to
solve elsewhere.
> that is, to establish the
> context that makes clear the problem is real and serious -- and that the
> proposed solution is also likely to have meaningful benefit.
>
> I share the frustration about lengthy standardization, and particularly
> with delays at the end. And certainly there is nothing wrong with
> adding parallelism where it makes sense.
>
> However absent a consideration of the lifecycle, the current proposal is
> a random point change, quite possibly an example of looking for lost
> keys under a lamppost because that's where it's easiest to see.
You may be right, I don't make any claim that this is going to
be super-good. OTOH maybe this is worth trying to see if we like
it or not.
Cheers,
S.
>> There's probably some sort of sympathetic vibe running between
>> this document and recent discussion of nearly-cooked work being
>> brought to the IETF for standardization.
>
> rumblings of free-floating dis-ease, perhaps. but are they really related?
>
>
>> If somebody hasn't already documented how long it takes to get
>> through the various steps once a document is into wglc, it
>> would be worthwhile to start taking notes.
>
> If a wg takes 2 years to get into wglc, a difference of a month doesn't
> matter, does it? That's why I mean about total lifecycle. Otherwise
> we're committing the classic system engineering error of inappropriate
> local optimization.
>
> d/
