Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

--On Tuesday, 25 October, 2005 15:29 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:

>> Marshall, may I suggest that your note contains the internal
>> contradiction that is a significant part of the problem I'm
>> seeing here, and maybe part of the one Leslie is seeing as
>> well.
> 
> Reading through this, I am beginning to share your concerns. I
> can understand short-circuiting certain aspects of the process
> (such as the time to appear at Plenary), but I think that
> having a confusing process  is very dangerous. Is this
> going to be a new model for IETF processes ? If so,  what is
> it  exactly ? Is it  documented ? Did it pass any  form of
> review ?

Those all seem to be key questions.  And each of them gets more
important going forward: were the plan for PESCI to report in
Vancouver perhaps get out a quick rev to the I-D immediately
thereafter, and then shut down to be replaced by a normal
process, I wouldn't be worried enough to raise these issues at
this point.  But that does not appear to be the plan.

> It is also dangerous  to throw out a solution that works,
> albeit with flaws,  for one that has never been implemented
> but appears to be easier. It may not be.
> 
> In this particular case, I think that one risk is that the
> effort might collapse into a morass of arguing about process -
> really, arguing about how to argue. Such short cuts may
> deliver neither agreement nor speed.

Agreed.  And the concern about, and risk of, touching off an
argument about how to argue was exactly why I decided to say
nothing for the last several months.  At this point, the issues
with the process being followed --rather than speculation about
what that process might be-- seem to be significant enough to
risk a meta-meta-discussion.

    john

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss