[Pesci-discuss] stack overflow

Oh boy...

>>> Marshall, may I suggest that your note contains the internal
>>> contradiction that is a significant part of the problem I'm
>>>       
>> Reading through this, I am beginning to share your concerns. I
>> can understand short-circuiting certain aspects of the process
>> ...
>>     
> Those all seem to be key questions.  And each of them gets more
> important going forward: were the plan for PESCI to report 

Perhaps I've become too jaded, but I'm watching this exchange, while 
once again marveling at how much I (once again) agree with John's 
statement of concerns over what is taking place, and...

I'm noticing that we are 3+ years after Yokohama and as nearly as I can 
tell we are enmeshed in a discussion about the process for pursuing the 
process for changing the process. 

I also note that there have been any number of thoughtful and 
interesting proposals put forward over the last few years, but that that 
does not seem to get in the way of starting each new change efforts afresh.

So, you know all the other standards groups that we spent years 
lambasting for their crufty, slow, excessive bureaucracies...?

What *used* to mark the IETF as distinctive was its ability to focus on 
practical issues in a timely fashion and make real forward progress.

I really do understand that each new effort, including the current one, 
is extremely well-intentioned.

Unfortunately, that is not enough to make any of them useful.

d/

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