Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/30/11 11:05 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> It seems to me that this does two things, both small but useful.
> 1) It makes a minor change in the advancement procedures so that they
> are more reasonable.  They may still not be sufficiently reasonable to
> be used, but it improves them, and thereby improves the odds.
> 2) It is coupled to an intent to actually behave according to what the
> document says.  Such an intent is obviously not feasible without some
> change.  It is useful to have our behavior and our documented
> description of how we work match because the mismatch causes confusion,
> at least for new participants, and sometimes even for experienced
> participants.
> 
> It might be the case that it will improve the advancement percentage. It
> might not.  I can not imagine that it will make that even worse.

I'm with Joel here. Let's clean up our documentation so that it more
closely matches our current practice. We might even encourage more folks
to progress their work along the standards track, although I think that
failing is more cultural than procedural.

> So, it seems to me that this matches the description that Eric, Brian,
> and others have used of a baby step that is not harmful and may be helpful.

The "baby step" description is a metaphor. If we can't make even this
small change, how can we expect to complete more significant reforms?

BTW, the latest version more clearly describes the problem it is trying
to solve, so I think that my DISCUSS has been addressed. I'm clearing
the DISCUSS and now approve of publishing this I-D as an RFC.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/