[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [newtrk] IETF Process discussions - next steps

Brian,

Your logic omits two substantial problems that NEWTRK was chartered to
address:

    * We are not practicing what we preach.  The IESG continues to
      ignore and violate Section 6.2 of RFC 2026 by not reviewing the
      state of PS and DS standards.
    * We again do not practice what we preach when we say that there are
      three tracks.  Running code largely indicates one.

Hence we need an update to indicate what it is we do practice. 
Otherwise, particularly for the first item, people can and should
legitimately ask what *other* requirements the IESG finds inconvenient. 
Furthermore, it leaves us open to people coming in and saying, "You
don't follow your own process, so please don't hide behind it when you
take an action I don't like."  The IESG must correct this issue.

In the process of doing so, we should recognize that the three step
process is obsolete.  Anyone who disgrees with that statement is
ignoring the evidence.  Our tradition as an organization is to attempt
to rectify our specifications based on running code.  Let us please do
so in this instance.

Finally, you have repeatedly failed to heed my recommendation of letting
Scott simply propose an update to the specification.  We as an
organization have trusted him and his words for a long time.  We are now
in a debacle because the IESG can't seem trust either this working group
or him.  And now we are going around endlessly through process hoops.

To say I am utterly disappointed at where we are would be an understatement.

Eliot
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html