Re: [newtrk] Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



David Kessens wrote:
> Eliot,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:54:52PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
>>Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>>>It's hard to estimate the work Eliot did in trying to contact various
>>>(dead or alive) WGs, RFC authors, etc. -- or did he (I recall hearing
>>>something about that)?
>>
>>I did some.  The big issue is that many email addresses have changed,
>>and many working groups have gone poof.  I don't think the process was
>>onerous.  I also did some nudging to get some updates out there (like
>>CIDR).  One thing I would suggest is that the IESG look at the remaining
>>documents and consider getting them promoted (somehow).  I put off that
>>discussion because I figured this group would have related output.
> 
> While I appreciate your tireless efforts, I would like to make it very
> clear that you are here asking the IESG to take on more work then it
> currently does.
> 
> As most ADs already have more work to act on than time available, this
> will mean that you are de-facto requesting us to drop other work. I
> believe that it is extremely important that this working group
> considers this very carefully and gives the IESG instructions on what
> other work should get a lower priority.
> 
> As far as my personal opinion, and please forgive me my bluntness, I
> believe that this whole effort to reclassify IETF documents, while
> well intentioned, equates to paperpushing. Basically, and this stems
> from my operational background, my question is whether this
> reclassification effort is making any difference in the day to day
> operations of the Internet. 
> 
> The IETF's mission is, to quote from rfc 3935, to make the 'Internet
> work better'. Loading more work on overloaded ADs or more process on
> hardworking IETF participants is not going to help to accomplish this
> mission. I believe that our best chances for *successful* process
> reform are in a review of our processes and to first look for cutting
> features in our process that are not in use or that don't pass the
> 'does this make any difference in the real Internet?' test.

I disagree; IMO, the work this represents helps move the chaff out of
the way so that the wheat - old wheat and new wheat - is easier to find.
Organizing the wheat so it's useful is just as productive - sometimes
moreso - as generating new wheat.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDxa2jE5f5cImnZrsRAnhiAJ9qDnnPQNPt7sUqWoWstOxEOkeV9gCdHvOu
H/pBlQHjpueNxR7YuTnMRwE=
=V1eB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html