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

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Friday, August 11, 2006 11:58 AM +0200 Brian E Carpenter 
<brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:

> > Hmm.  Since the IESG has the option of doing it --indeed a
> > requirement  to do it which they have decided to not take
> > seriously--
>
> I can't stop myself wryly observing that this goes back a long
> way,
> to when Certain Persons Here Present were in the IESG. In
> other words,
> it isn't a frivolous decision by recently appointed ADs, and
> there's probably a reason for it.

Of course there is a reason for it.  There are probably, by now, 
several.  But the facts remain that:

(1) the written rules are not being followed.

(2) those rules put the IESG in the critical path

(3) the IESG has not raised a finger to change the rules

(4) the discussion and near/ rough consensus in Newtrk led to a 
proposal that would have significantly changed the situation, 
but the then-IESG didn't like it, so it got permanently stalled.

IMO, the next move is up to the IESG, and debating the precise 
definition of "gating" won't help anyone get to it.  And the 
only other way to make progress starts with a change in the way 
process rules/ changes are reviewed and approved.

    john



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