--On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 16:41 +0200 IETF Chair <ch...@ietf.org> wrote:
> Last night there was a question in the plenary about how many > PS->IS transitions have occurred since RFC 6410 was published > in October 2011. That RFC changed the three-step standards > process to two steps. There was also a question of how this > compared to previous times before that RFC got approved. > > Looking at the timeframe from October 2011 to today (22 > months), there have been four such protocol actions. These > results are given by searching the IETF Announce mail archive: >... > Prior to the publication of RFC 6410, in the preceding 22 > months there were these 20 actions raising standards to either > Draft Standard or Full Standard: >... > I should insert here the Standard disclaimer about possibly > faulty search methodology or records, misunderstanding the > question, or the hasty interpretation of results. In > particular, the above search was not easy on ARO, involved > manual steps, and I might have easily missed something. And I > wish I had been able to do a database query instead. Feel free > to repeat & verify my results... Jari, Thanks for this. Disclaimers and possible small classification errors aside and being careful to avoid making causal assumptions, I believe that the implication of the above is that there is no evidence that the 3 -> 2 transition has increased the number of documents being moved or promoted out of Proposed Standard. If one were to assume a causal relationship and an absence of external confounding variates or processes, one might even conclude the the 3 -> 2 transition has made things quite a lot worse. Conversely, it seems to me that one could argue that the change has made things better only by demonstrating the existence of a process that would have led to considerably fewer than four documents being moved out of Proposed Standard in the last 22 months in the absence of the change. While the apparently-significant reduction in documents moved out of Proposed Standard is far worse than we expected, is it time for Scott Bradner and myself to review draft-bradner-restore-proposed-00, issue a new version, and start a serious discussion about that model of a solution? Would be willing to sponsor such a draft or, if you prefer, organize a WG or equivalent to consider it? thanks, john
