Re: [newtrk] Reviewing state of PS and DS standards

[Eliot Lear <lear at cisco.com>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>
> Scott W Brim wrote:
>> Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>>>    * 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.
>>
>>
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>>> I specifically do not believe there were any signs of newtrk
>>> reaching a consensus on the first two points you mention
>>
>>
>> There was certainly consensus on the first one.  It's a simple fact.
>> Let's stick to that.
>
> Er, yes, what I meant of course was that there was no consensus about
> what to do about those phenonema. Sorry about the careless translation
> from thinking to typing.

If we simply tackle the first point and ignore the second, the IESG can
say that they are following a documented process.  The process, however,
is still a bad one because...
> But in fact, the energy
> *is* lacking in most cases, and the IESG has always been scared
> of perpetual WGs that do work for work's sake.

BINGO.  So there are many options to improve matters:

    * Simply combine draft and full (e.g., drop draft);
    * Drop both draft AND full; or
    * Drop both draft and full AND go with ISDs.

I really don't care which one you do but pick one, Brian, and run with
it.  The NEWTRK group has done a lot of thought here and would prefer
the latter.  All I care is that we be mindful of the words you wrote
just above "BINGO" and that we at least attempt to follow whatever
process we set down.

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