Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hector,

On 12/02/2012 12:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
> This proposal sounds interesting but couldn't it run into conflicts when
> there are competition in running code?   Who's running code do you fast
> track?  How does it apply in the protocol updates area, i.e. BIS work?

Good point. I clarified that its just drafts heading to PS and
-bis drafts are just fine. (Might actually be well-suited for those,
and I'd not thought about that.)

> This proposal and thread, similar to the recent others, all seem to be
> looking for endorsing methods for lack of a better term, "rubber
> stamping" and fast tracking work items, in particular when there are WG
> related barriers holding back the WG work item(s) production progress.

Well, I'm after something where fast-track != rubber-stamp, but I
do agree that that's a hard balance to achieve. I'm not claiming that
this draft does achieve that balance, but such a balance is a goal.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> I personally do not have an issue with expediting work when the proper
> protocol engineering is done and the adequate engineering reviews are
> done, in fact, I depend on the IETF/IESG engineering do this work.  I
> depend on the long time wisdom and engineering judgment of the IETF
> leaders and reviewers to watch over sensitive engineering issues,
> including conflict of interest related matters.
> 
> In the end, we are talking about trusting the process.  If IETF
> participants, especially those who don't attend meetings and long
> participated remotely or via mailing list, lose faith in the WG process,
> these process change proposals may expedite IETF work, but they may also
> handicap the potential of a proposed standard, change and industry
> following.
> 
> -- 
> HLS
> 
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've just posted an idea [1] for a small process improvement.
>> If it doesn't seem crazy I'll try pursue it with the IESG as
>> an RFC 3933 process experiment. If its universally hated then
>> that's fine, it can die.
>>
>> The IESG have seen (more-or-less) this already but it hasn't
>> be discussed, so this is just a proposal from me and has no
>> "official" status whatsoever.
>>
>> Any comments, suggestions or better ideas are very welcome.
>> Feel free to send me comments off list for now, or on this
>> list I guess. If there's loads of email (always possible,
>> this being a process thing;-) we can move to some other list.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stephen.
>>
>> [1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-farrell-ft
>>
>>
>