Closing down draft-secretaries-good-practices

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 09 December 2014 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38F81A802C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nuGa5cOBqZwm for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04D191A7D85 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 06:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB9EephW003160; Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:40:51 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sB9Eeocv003144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:40:51 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Closing down draft-secretaries-good-practices
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:40:45 -0000
Message-ID: <042901d013be$1e3750c0$5aa5f240$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdATvhquSuYbkXlETXKOwQx7ZMBNsA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21160.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No-1.952-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No-1.952-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CbM5+F18okmF1SyzhV53s1aOpp/sV5nVmGSSol4Uei3/W9TIn2QlcnJn hssnLLSfd4BOKkI/1xDPKWCeeNrZI7at7fo9uXTWbMGKOuLn5FVKFU+QqbaW+g2G3vz8l/IEtQf zhge4nUM3MJ26UeI1fEOR8gDRpJrLti+2Rq0aYw24jAucHcCqnbqcTeri8oHHoJNncxMF3uTP4O sOuYUMj+b0nrUQ4o6wk4UhKkBO1zgGhDY2CnqKN46MisxJraxHxQ7dj5rD+RubKItl61J/ycnjL TA/UDoAxpQ77C1A1tqOhzOa6g8KrehT5yzNU/MbTFSJJ7TUcXh1NMo/B0X1eqEh6wdhy6odhZIW bnMSGla5hTjTWkYmpWE0FwyhijEfSOxs38OWK/Ymp6U2wZz4TyXidVjAhEZBrX7cmKNisA4yqaE b8zSjj/QwfDO7YmjAhDdD7MTAW6aUTGVAhB5EbQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LV4d7ci4n2ml9toVGgIIo2qCo-E
Cc: draft-secretaries-good-practices.all@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 14:40:55 -0000

Hi,

I have been discussing what to do with this document with the IESG and with the
authors.

It would appear that there is not sufficient support for publishing the work as
an RFC, so I will mark the I-D as "Dead" and remove it from the process.

Of course, you are all welcome to continue to discuss its content, and the work
could be brought back if there is a desire to do so.

I am not going to let this moment pass without spending a few words to say how
disappointed I am with the tone and lack of constructiveness in the debate about
this document. It seems to me that a lot of what is bad about the IETF emerged
during the discussions and that there was very little attempt to ascribe good
intentions to the authors. I think that should be a cause for shame among those
who sent comments.

I know that it is hard to find time in your busy lives to read and review
drafts. Nevertheless, continuing the thread of review based on one version of a
document without looking at the new revision is not helpful.

I know that you all care a lot about the IETF process and the things that make
the IETF unique. Nevertheless, the healthy paranoia expressed in many of the
comments seemed to me to go over the line. There is often a claim that the IESG
is unwilling to make changes to IETF process, is slow, and ossified. Well, in
this case it would appear that the IETF community is unwilling to even
acknowledge the current state of its own processes or to allow them to be
documented with consensus for future reference.

Adrian