Re: Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

Eliot,

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:54:52PM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> >
> > It's hard to estimate the work Eliot did in trying to contact various
> > (dead or alive) WGs, RFC authors, etc. -- or did he (I recall hearing
> > something about that)?
> 
> I did some.  The big issue is that many email addresses have changed,
> and many working groups have gone poof.  I don't think the process was
> onerous.  I also did some nudging to get some updates out there (like
> CIDR).  One thing I would suggest is that the IESG look at the remaining
> documents and consider getting them promoted (somehow).  I put off that
> discussion because I figured this group would have related output.

While I appreciate your tireless efforts, I would like to make it very
clear that you are here asking the IESG to take on more work then it
currently does.

As most ADs already have more work to act on than time available, this
will mean that you are de-facto requesting us to drop other work. I
believe that it is extremely important that this working group
considers this very carefully and gives the IESG instructions on what
other work should get a lower priority.

As far as my personal opinion, and please forgive me my bluntness, I
believe that this whole effort to reclassify IETF documents, while
well intentioned, equates to paperpushing. Basically, and this stems
from my operational background, my question is whether this
reclassification effort is making any difference in the day to day
operations of the Internet. 

The IETF's mission is, to quote from rfc 3935, to make the 'Internet
work better'. Loading more work on overloaded ADs or more process on
hardworking IETF participants is not going to help to accomplish this
mission. I believe that our best chances for *successful* process
reform are in a review of our processes and to first look for cutting
features in our process that are not in use or that don't pass the
'does this make any difference in the real Internet?' test.

David Kessens
---
.