IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pesci-discuss] Driving proposals

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 10 November 2005 17:41 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EaGQI-0004Ka-SO; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:41:18 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EaGQG-0004KJ-4H for pesci-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:41:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20832 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:40:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EaGgU-0001Wu-IM for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:58:04 -0500
Received: from [192.168.47.133] ([24.82.160.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jAAHfkBa029327 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:41:47 -0800
Message-ID: <4373862F.5040107@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:41:03 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4 (Windows/20050908)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Driving proposals
References: <A504D37F23F3DDC12B8072FE@as-s2n.ietf64.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <A504D37F23F3DDC12B8072FE@as-s2n.ietf64.ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Found to be clean
X-Songbird-From: dhc@dcrocker.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: Process Evolution Study Committee of the IETF discussion <pesci-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pesci-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

> While there are some other differences (and I very much agree with 
> several of the comments Ted made yesterday) _that_, IMO, is why process 
> proposals are different from technical ones right now.   If a proposal 
> isn't going anywhere without IESG support, and the IESG appears to go on 
> the attack when it appears, there is little point in trying to pursue it 
> further.


A technical proposal has a target user population "out there" in the public 
community.

A process proposal has a target user population right here, since our shared 
environment.

Whereas a technical proposal can succeed even if it is marginalized among 
the rest of the IETF community, a process proposal cannot.

When the leadership of the IETF demonstrates, at best, benign neglect of 
significant change effort, it simply will not happen.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email