Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Mon, 20 March 2006 15:52 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLMfq-0004ui-J1; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:52:02 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLMfp-0004ud-6z for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:52:01 -0500
Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FLMfn-0007KR-PY for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:52:01 -0500
Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate4.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k2KFpwVV114672 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:51:58 GMT
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.212]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k2KFqT00139186 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:52:29 +0100
Received: from d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k2KFpwid027772 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:51:58 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k2KFpvU0027752; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:51:57 +0100
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-254-40.de.ibm.com [9.145.254.40]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA44126; Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:51:55 +0100
Message-ID: <441ECF9B.5040503@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:51:55 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps-00.txt
References: <E1FEEbS-0006vO-Cl@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> <44055963.4020304@zurich.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603191741050.26745@netcore.fi>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603191741050.26745@netcore.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f
Cc: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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>
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Pekka Savola wrote: > A couple of comments: > > 2.1. Change Process Proposal > The teams should function with an open discussion list, in the same > way that the PESCI team has done. The output of each team should be > tested against the IETF consensus in the normal fashion; we believe > that if there is clear IETF consensus that the proposal makes sense, > the IESG (and the ISOC Board of Trustees) will respect that consensus > and approve of it. > > ==> the consensus judged by _whom_? Did you mean rough consensus, btw? I understood that to mean a 4 week IETF last call and IESG approval. Do you we need a new mechanism? > > 3. Immediate Tasks for the Change Process > This review should include: > .... (9 bullets of stuff...) > > ==> this seems a very extensive task, with several separable pieces. The > list seems to be written in such a way that I got the impression the > "first team" should do all of the above. This doesn't seem productive > at all. I had thought of more parallelism than that, myself. > > Is this (again) the case of, "by the way, could you please rewrite > RFC2026 and all our process docs while you're at it.. THANKS!" ? Not *all*, but I think personally there are several that need revising this year - I will talk about that in the GenArea meeting. Brian _______________________________________________ Pesci-discuss mailing list Pesci-discuss@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
- [Pesci-discuss] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pes… Brian E Carpenter
- [Pesci-discuss] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-davies-pesci… Brian E Carpenter
- [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-steps… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Pekka Savola
- Re: [Pesci-discuss] Re: draft-davies-pesci-next-s… Brian E Carpenter