RE: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Friday, September 02, 2011 14:36 -0700 Ned Freed
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> Well, that's the real problem, isn't it? Even if you believe
> this is a distraction and even actively harmful, it's not like
> we've been able to move past it either. The "running code"
> result here seems pretty clear, and it does not argue in favor
> of another round of discussion.

To make one thing clear that I may not have been clear enough
about: I felt a need to respond to Jari's summary.  I did not
want to set off another round of discussion.  I do not think
another round of discussion would be in the least useful: as far
as I can tell, no one who is expressing opinions about whether
or not we should adopt this change now has changed opinions on
that subject (sometimes the reasons stated have changed).  That
doesn't suggest that more discussion would change any minds.

>From that point of view, I believe the _only_ question at this
point, with this process, is whether there is sufficient
consensus that this proposal meets the community's norms for
making process changes.  I've heard all of the following argued
to be those norms for this type of proposal:

(1) No worse than what we have (i.e., no proof that three levels
are better than two)

(2) Likely useless, but the burden is on those who don't like it
to prove that rather than on those who advocate it to
demonstrate its utility.

(3) Possibly useful and harmless at worst.  

(4) Possibly useful but possibly harmful.

(5) Definitely useful and a compelling argument established for
this change.

For the first, I think that consensus probably exists, but I'm
not on the IESG and may not have a correct perspective.  For (2)
- (4), I really don't have a good estimate of how the community
feels: figuring that out is why we pay the IESG the big bucks.
And I don't think anyone has really made a compelling case for
the 5th.  YMMV.

And, fwiw, I think it would be a pity to prolong this discussion
by debating those categories, either as to whether they are the
correct categories or as to which one we should be using.  To
paraphrase a recent note from Russ, if someone feels a need to
do that, at least start another thread.

    john