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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

+4 and rotfl

   Brian

On 2011-09-16 17:17, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> I thought the counting of votes was finished on this topic but people seem to keep emailing their support/lack-of, so naturally I will be a good lemming and do the same.
> 
> 1) I am in favor of the two-maturity-levels draft and change.  I have consulted a textbook on Euclidean geometry and determined that the distance from level 2 to 1 is shorter than 3 to 1, getting us closer to the actual location most of us are at (which is of course 1 maturity level).  
> 
> 2) I am strongly opposed to draft-loughney-newtrk-one-size-fits-all-01, because it is far too rational and sane, and would prevent this topic from continuing forever.  Furthermore, I am against any move to 1 maturity level because apparently there are one or two people with so much free time or posterity they actually bother moving PS to higher levels these days, and who are we to squash their hobby/passion/disorder?  (In fact, I was almost going to suggest we go to a 4 or 5 maturity level process just to give these people more harmless things to do, but I digress...)
> 
> 3) The IESG should be applauded/thanked for recognizing there is only one maturity level (PS), and taking the steps necessary to treat potential RFCs as such from a quality perspective.  But they should be denigrated for not telling us they did that.  So they come out even.
> 
> 4) Regarding the discussion in this thread about what types of comments should be counted or not: I believe we should produce a new RFC concerning what response phrases in emails are going to be counted or not for consensus counting, so that we may know what to say in the future to get our votes counted.  (Of course the big question everyone wants to know is when will such a new RFC reach the second maturity level?)
> 
> -hadriel
> 
> p.s. in all seriousness, I'm in favor of this two-maturiy-level draft.  I do not think it is "change for change's sake", but rather a change attempting to accommodate differing viewpoints of our present location and where we want to be.  If it fails to change the status-quo of 1 level, that's *OK*, we can try again - the Internet won't collapse because of this document, and neither will the IETF.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>