Re: [Pesci-discuss] stack overflow

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> 
>> As Brian says, we didn't think it would be legitimate to change the
>> process for changing the process -- it's a boostrapping problem, we
>> have to use what we have now to get to the next level.
> 
> 
> This is the part I simply do not understand.  We have had lots of 
> process changes, over the years, involving a variety of "processes".  
> The most important characteristics that they have had in common are:
> 
> 1. A problem was perceived and appears to be considered a problem by 
> "the community"
> 
> 2. A proposal for change was formulated and promoted (errrr... discussed.)
> 
> 3. Feedback from the community prompted iteration on the proposal until 
> enough support appeared to be present
> 
> 4. The change was adopted.
> 
> Instead we now have two things that greet every single serious proposal 
> for change:
> 
> 1. Claims that it's folliwing the wrong process, or that first we have 
> to discuss and revise the process, and
> 
> 2. Death by a thousand criticisms, rather than a collaborative tone to 
> improve it.
> 
> When we stop focussing on the process of change, and start focusing on 
> making changes, we are likely to make much better progress.
> 

There's obviously something wrong here, because I violently agree
with your last sentence. That's exactly where I want to get to.
Er, that is what we need section 4 of the draft to become: principles
for the changes we need to make.

    Brian

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