Re: Call for review of proposed IESG Statement on Examples

[Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> While not even dreaming of trying to speak for John, what I understood 
> his point to be was that our process is, and needs to be, more than a 
> set of rules.
...
> On this particular topic, I've been really dismayed that we've gotten so 
> far into the weeds on what was obviously (to me) an attempt to do the 
> right thing - provide example domain names - that is now morphing into a 
> set of rules. 


+1

Perhaps the most important lesson from the last few years of diligent effort to 
create and write detailed rules is to make clear that that is not where IETF 
problems reside.

Yes, we need good documentation.  Far better than we used to have.  But that 
does not mean that the documents need to list microscopic rules.

The reality we have seen is that folks don't remember the rules, don't follow 
the fine-grained details and the details from one rule to the next are starting 
to conflict.

What we need are documents that define scope, goals, principals, and the like.

The application of these more-basic constructs needs to demonstrate careful