Subject: Experimentation and nomcom space

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:11:35 +0900

this is a half-baked idea.

One of the really scary things about writing procedures is that once we've 
written them, the cost of changing them again (as we see now) is quite high.

Thus, we run a real danger of being stuck with inappropriate procedures if 
we don't get them right the first time.

In protocol space, the answer is often an Experimental RFC, documenting a 
particular approach so that people can try a well-documented approach and 
evaluate the result.

This doesn't work as well in nomcom space - there is only one nomcom. But 
still....

perhaps the "noncontroversial" no-change process needs to be the rule, and 
a publishing-names proposal needs to be an one-year "variance procedure"?

Again, trying to see if we can minimize the potential harm to the community 
while still preventing fossilization.....

                       Harald

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:45:27 -0400 (EDT)

> a publishing-names proposal needs to be an one-year "variance procedure"?

fwiw - I'm not seeing a consensus to change our current process to publish
names, or, if names were to be published, just what the process would be

since we have running code I would expect that we need a good consensus to
change the current rules even for one year

Scott

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 20:54:55 -0700

> fwiw - I'm not seeing a consensus to change our current process
> to publish names, or, if names were to be published, just what
> the process would be
> 
> since we have running code I would expect that we need a good
> consensus to change the current rules even for one year

what he says.  

imiho, change for the appearance of change or flexibility is not
constructive in the long run.  we should act deliberately, i.e.
with deliberation.

randy