Re: [Pesci-discuss] Growing concerns about PESCI

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>]

> The big difference is -- there is absolutely no piece of IETF
> standards process that *requires* that the "design team" listen to any
> of the points provided on the "-discuss" list.  There is a tacit
> requirement, in that one presumes the appropriate AD will be recalled if
> the result is clearly and obviously out of step with what the community
> asks, but that's a high-risk negative motivation.
>
> So, a genuine question:  is PESCI blurring lines, or does
> this suggest that we have in fact given up on WGs/our process?

I think *I* have (given up on using the WG process for process evolution). I 
am not sure at all that *we* have.

My reasons were pretty well summarized in the Paris plenary discussions 
(expecting the IESG to spend significant time on process evolution, 
especially when proposals involving major IESG restructuring were on the 
table).

I have expressed some of the same concerns on PESCI-discuss that John 
included in his note, so I'm not saying that current-PESCI is either perfect 
or the only alternative.

> Leslie.

Spencer 


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf