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

[<john.loughney at nokia.com>]

>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.

I'm with Eliot on this one. I still think we should put our money
where our procedures are. Either follow them, or update them.  I would 
prefer either 2 or 3 from Eliots list.

Drafts get DISCUSSes if the draft doesn't follow any number of
documented 
(and sometimes undocumented) procedures.  Could we (the NEWTRK WG) issue

a DISCUSS on the entire IESG about not following 2026?

John Loughney 

Too many John's in the this group.  Everyone in the Security Area is
Steve, I
guess in the General Area, its John ...

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