Re: bettering open source involvement

Stephen Farrell <> Fri, 29 July 2016 15:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5AFF12D520 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.588
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jBq29Dm1DeSJ for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBCF12B065 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5418EBE53; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:33:19 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F-ecUKDq54ys; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:33:18 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A50CBE4C; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:33:17 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1469806397; bh=Vr/FJD6U1F3sH8tmnwbBFboUQmXKfFFSz+f/2ftcgpQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DEtez8WrUG0pW5rhcKcoOq8t6ceoO5yqgIs7OrSUU6atFWTf/z3CCeSk7VDjsqCd6 whXAR3vn0ZIOWUEEdP9zW6FOWJOrp3YjdEn5vi5jOr8t4KwQnlKU1TW1+2f7pt6PFr 5cwZHX9bF9nh00+ae+SqlGywKOi4qVKlSrpJHTaY=
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
To: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <>, Alia Atlas <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Stephen Farrell <>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:33:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms080506070200040604000807"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:33:23 -0000

On 29/07/16 16:20, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> I'm not asserting that IETF needs to bring cycle times down to days,
> weeks or months 

I think months would actually be a good goal, for some
bits of work, and is doable in some cases. At present that
does require quite a special kind of work and for involved
folks to be very familiar with IETF stuff.

> but my sense is that there is a brokenness to the
> process. 

Well, not quite "the process" but more I think "how we operate
the process" - a lot of delays are not due to the formal process
but down to disagreements between smart people who are quite good
at disagreeing subtly and also a lack of time to do this kind of

> Slowness to generate the standards, slowness in adoption of
> standards, etc.  There are no magic fixes but there surely are ways
> of reducing drag.

I agree. And I think we should try get better at that despite
pretty much every single process-change suggestion attracting
some opposition from somewhere. (Maybe we should have a competition
to see if anyone can come up with a universally supported process
change for the IETF:-)