Re: [Rfcplusplus] IRTF stream considerations

Slightly off-topic, but perhaps important
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a real difference, in my opinion, in that the definition of
> the streams was a codification of existing practice, and the format
> update was something people have been requesting for many years.
> Neither of them showed any signs of being fundamentally contentious.
>

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally contentious", but both
proposals had many months of discussions and, in some parts, quite serious
opposition.  Contentious would have been a word I would personally have
used to describe the format update, for example, and I'm not sure why you
would disagree.

This time, we've seen a much more radical proposal which, if carried
> forward, would fundamentally change the series. In that case you can't
> duck the question of authority and who calls consensus.
>
>
I'll note that the proposed experiment borrows many elements of the format
discussion's process.  While there is no question that the final format
documents were published by the IAB, the face-to-face discussions were all
hosted at IETF plenary meetings, for the same reason:  it's the place where
the largest number of stream contributors are together at the same place
and the same time.  It also borrows the rollback method inherent in the
format proposal (double RFC publication, first with trial format, then with
final format).  If you have other methods in mind that would produce more
transparent discussion or more opportunity to test the results as we go,
I'd personally be interested in hearing them.  But this BoF follows the
pattern we have used recently, at least to my eyes.

regards,

Ted

>    Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus
>