Subject: [newtrk] starting a focused discussion

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 09:28:53 -0400 (EDT)

newtrackers

I talked to our AD a while back (after the IESG message on ISDs) and
agreed to drive a focused discussion on the IESG comments on the newtrk
list before the newtrk meeting in Paris.  I told Brian that it would be
most useful if all the IESG members where actually on the newtrk list
and had agreed to participate in a discussion.  He agreed to poke the 5
(if memory serves) who were not already on the list - at least two of
those have since subscribed - I'm not sure about the other 3 but time is
running out so its time to start the discussion.

I admit that I was reluctant to spend the effort, mostly because I read
the IESG response the way that Sam just explained:

   1) The IESG is not at all sure that the ISD proposal is a good idea.
   We'd think it reasonable if newtrk decided not to follow it any more.

That feeling made it hard for me to get up enough energy to start the
discussion.  Brian responded that he did not think the view was so stark
and said that he thought that a discussion would be helpful.

Sam's 2nd paragraph is quite troubling, for the reasons that Brian
pointed out

Sam:
    If you do decide to spend more efforts on the ISD proposal make
    sure you realize that you may not come to consensus and the IESG
    believes that even if you do come to consensus the IETF as a whole
    may not support that consensus.  In other words you're taking a
    significant risk.

Brian:
   That is certainly the IESG view. Of course, there's an interesting
   meta-point here: the IESG won't survive if it appoints itself as
   both judge and jury on process changes. If there is a clear IETF
   consensus for a process change (note: I didn't say newtrk consensus),
   the change will happen. But we aren't anywhere near there yet.

I will say that Sam's paragraph fit my pessimistic view of the
willingness of the IESG to actually consider real change.  Brian's
response does let me feel that there is a hope - even of not a big one.

What I propose to do is to follow Sam's third paragraph:
   If you do decide to go forward with ISDs, the IESG tried to point
   some useful directions that the IESG believes it would be worth
   considering.  The IESG also tried to enumerate some specific
   concerns with the current proposal.

I will be posting a series of messages, each one focused on a single (as
much as I can) issue.  I hope that we can have some useful discussion on
the list leading up to the Paris meeting.  Note that the Paris newtrk
session is scheduled for Friday morning specifically to enable almost
all of the IESG members to attend.  (Brian says that the IESG members
have been strongly urged to attend.)  I expect we can come out of that
session with a mostly final decision on the usefulness of pursuing the
idea of ISDs (but maybe not having nailed down all the details if the
answer is yes).

In case there might be any confusion - I strongly think that ISDs can
solve real problems that the IETF currently has and will result in
better standards and less work for the IESG and I strongly think that we
should work out the details and get a move on.  But I'm also realistic
enough to know that ISDs, or any other structural reform, is doomed if
one or two IESG members decide they do not like the idea and at this
point the nay-sayers on the IESG have enough votes.

Scott

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 10:53:55 -0400

Scott,

Just to clarify my position on this, largely because it implies
that, if NEWTRK is going to move forward with ISDs, you need a
new lead editor...

Your message may be taken as a little pessimistic, but I don't
share your optimism.   To be less vague, I think the situation
is worse than you suggest and, indeed, is nearly hopeless unless
we, and the broader community, are ready to address the "the
IESG won't survive if it appoints itself as both judge and jury
on process changes" part of Brian's note.  As far as I can tell,
the IESG is doing just that, perhaps because we have given them
no choice, but the end result is that no process or
standards-track definition change is going anywhere unless it
has near unanimous support within the IESG, and no substantial
and substantive change is going to get that support, least of
all any likely evolution of the ISD idea.

Take a look at the comments in combination.  The WG, or at least
John L and myself, came to the conclusion that ISDs would be
worth the trouble precisely because they would attack a
sufficiently large range of problems to justify the costs.  The
IESG response was "solve fewer problems".  We could probably
water the ISD notion down enough to make them into a
somewhat-enhanced RFC Index, and maybe the IESG would accept
that.  But doing so wouldn't solve, or even help with, the "what
is the standard" problem, nor the granularity of
interoperability and maturity problem, nor the formal errata
problems, each of which some of us consider important.

Now we see Brian's "two step" proposal.  Personally, I think it
is a fine idea, but iff we have ISDs.    Without ISDs, it moves
us from "we get few docs to Draft, almost none to full standard,
and, when we get there, we don't know what the definitions mean"
to "we get few docs to stage 2 and, when we get there, we don't
know what the definitions mean".  Maybe we get even fewer docs
to stage 2 than we do today: If the IESG applies the "this is
probably the last shot we get at it" logic that has been a
contributor to the extremely high threshold for Proposed (and,
hence, to running out of energy to advance docs to Draft) to a
new stage 2, then we will see almost as few documents make it to
that level that we now see make it to full standard.  Whether we
have two "extra" levels that almost no one uses or only one such
level does not impress me as a substantive or significant change
but, of course, ymmd.

As to what should be done next, you wrote...

> willingness of the IESG to actually consider real change.
> Brian's response does let me feel that there is a hope - even
> of not a big one.

But my reading of Brian's response is that we are perhaps better
off working on the IESG and how it makes (or blocks) decisions
like this, rather than on the details of the ISD proposal.

Sam's comment reinforces that view...

> Sam:
>     If you do decide to spend more efforts on the ISD proposal
> make sure you realize that you may not come to consensus
> and the IESG believes that even if you do come to
> consensus the IETF as a whole may not support that
> consensus.  In other words you're taking a significant
> risk.

What he did not say is that the IESG, and the IESG exclusively,
determines whether we have reached consensus and whether there
is IETF "support [for] that consensus".  

> In case there might be any confusion - I strongly think that
> ISDs can solve real problems that the IETF currently has and
> will result in better standards and less work for the IESG and
> I strongly think that we should work out the details and get a
> move on.  But I'm also realistic enough to know that ISDs, or
> any other structural reform, is doomed if one or two IESG
> members decide they do not like the idea and at this point the
> nay-sayers on the IESG have enough votes.

It isn't just the votes.  Assume, for purposes of discussion,
that the IESG could be persuaded to agree to ISDs with their
present scope (plus or minus tuning details).  I would contend
that, in practice, even one or two IESG members could make ISDs
not work, and then proclaim to the community that they were
right about their concerns, just by a combination of
foot-dragging, nit-picking, and assorted passive-aggressive
behavior.

I really hope I'm wrong.

      john

.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:59:49 -0400

Hi John,

I am really confused by this response, because it was my 
understanding (as a person in the room at the time) that you, John L. 
and Scott Bradner explicitly _asked_ the IESG to discuss the ISD 
proposal at our retreat and give you our opinions. You even sent a 
presentation for Brian C. to give, in case any of us were not fully 
cognizant of the proposal.  It's not like we spontaneously decided to 
offer our group opinion on this work.

I, of course, had already shared my personal opinions with you and 
the rest of the WG on the mailing list.

I do not put a discuss on every document that I personally disagree 
with, because I do not believe that my personal opinion should 
overrule the informed decisions of an IETF WG.  I don't think that 
other IESG members do that either.  So, I think it is a mistake to 
interpret our personal opinions that there are problems with this 
work as a statement that we will never approve publication of an ISD 
proposal.

We (the IESG) do have some serious concerns about this proposal, 
though, and we shared those concerns on the WG mailing list, as you 
requested.  We are members of the community with enough knowledge of 
the process to have an informed opinion on this proposal, and I think 
that you, John L. and the other members of the newtrk WG (which 
includes most IESG members) should consider our input in deciding 
how/if to proceed with this proposal.

I also do think that there is a problem with doing work that is 
out-of-charter, and my concern is not purely a legalistic one. 
Charters (and substantive charter updates) are reviewed by the 
community to ensure that there is no community objection to the 
intended work.  They also alert people that work on a particular 
topic is happening in a particular group.  So, if an item is not 
included in a WG's charter, it is possible that some people 
interested in that work may not be aware that they should be 
participating in the group.  You know all of this better than I do, 
though...

Margaret

.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:24:49 -0400

Margaret,

There is an aspect of my comments that I have discussed with
various people in private but about which I was not clear in the
note.  I should have been, and I apologize.   That aspect is...

When we made that request of the IESG, we were trying to see
whether this was an idea that the IESG was inclined to have
moved forward and, if so, where the IESG, and its individual
members, fell on the "enthusiastic ... hate the idea" scale.  We
wanted that feedback because we (or at least I) were disinclined
to spend more time refining details of the ISD idea if either
the IESG was ultimately going to shoot it down or if the IESG
might adopt it and then cause it to fail by utilizing it without
enthusiasm.  We were trying to facilitate (relatively) early
feedback, rather than risking a late surprise.   I think that a
review of the WG mailing list archive from both before and after
the Minneapolis meeting, will show that objective was very clear.

>From that point of view, the request to the IESG for feedback
was wildly successful.  When we can identify a piece of work in
the IETF as not going anywhere, it is a success when that
identification can be made fairly early and we can stop spending
time on it.  In that context, we have gotten the feedback we
asked for and it is fairly clear.   Others may have different
opinions about key highlights but, for me, they are

	(i) the WG proposed ISDs as a way to address several
	interconnected problems; the IESG responded that it
	wanted a narrower (but unspecified) problem or set of
	problems addressed.
	
	(ii) the WG inquired as to whether this was an idea the
	IESG could get behind; the IESG responded that it was
	not, at least in its current form and that many, if not
	most, IESG members would be pleased if the WG just
	dropped it.
	
	(iii) the WG inquired as to whether the IESG could, and
	was inclined to, take a broad view of the issues and the
	proposal; the IESG responded by picking at details.
	
	(iv) the WG proposed this as something that appeared
	necessary for the community, even if it involved some
	marginal effort (although many of us believe that, in
	the long term, the marginal effort would be low).
	Michael Richardson's recent comments pretty much
	summarize that issue.  The IESG's response was that it
	might mean more work for the IESG.  

I think those answers, and others like them, are clear.  While
they are not the answers I would have preferred, my (and I think
"our") main goal was to get clear answers so as to make
decisions about further work.   I think we have those answers
and all I'm questioning at this point is whether further
dialogue about ISDs is useful, given those answers.

     john

--On Monday, 06 June, 2005 12:59 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> understanding (as a person in the room at the time) that you,
> John L. and Scott Bradner explicitly _asked_ the IESG to
> discuss the ISD proposal at our retreat and give you our
> opinions. You even sent a presentation for Brian C. to give,
> in case any of us were not fully cognizant of the proposal.
> It's not like we spontaneously decided to offer our group
> opinion on this work.
> 
> I, of course, had already shared my personal opinions with you
> and the rest of the WG on the mailing list.
> 
> I do not put a discuss on every document that I personally
> disagree with, because I do not believe that my personal
> opinion should overrule the informed decisions of an IETF WG.
> I don't think that other IESG members do that either.  So, I
> think it is a mistake to interpret our personal opinions that
> there are problems with this work as a statement that we will
> never approve publication of an ISD proposal.
> 
> We (the IESG) do have some serious concerns about this
> proposal, though, and we shared those concerns on the WG
> mailing list, as you requested.  We are members of the
> community with enough knowledge of the process to have an
> informed opinion on this proposal, and I think that you, John
> L. and the other members of the newtrk WG (which includes most
> IESG members) should consider our input in deciding how/if to
> proceed with this proposal.
>...

.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 14:13:42 -0400

This makes much more sense, John.  I'm sorry for misunderstanding the 
context of your previous message.

I'd like to respond to some other points in your message below, but 
please realize that these are just my personal opinions (which I 
don't believe should be weighed anymore than yours or anyone else's), 
not a consensus view of the IESG or any other group.

>	wanted a narrower (but unspecified) problem or set of

Personally, I really like the idea of living documents that describe 
the state of a particular standard (IPv6, TCP, SIP).  IMO, these 
would be incredibly useful for complex standards that have evolved 
over time and that are mature enough for the process of assembling 
these document to reflect implemented and deployed reality.

I really like the idea of using lighter-weight, web-based documents 
for this purpose, and I like the idea that these documents could 
reference other documents at any standards/non-standards level.

If we create a document type for this sort of document, I would 
enthusiastically embrace its use where appropriate.  I do not think, 
though, that it will be useful to generate one of these documents for 
every standards-track RFC (and I think that doing so would waste 
resources and detract from the value of the series), nor do I think 
that these are documents that can be auto-generated in any useful way.

I do _not_ think that publishing/updating these documents after IESG 
approval is an adequate substitute for fixing our document 
publication process so that new standards get published in a timely 
manner.

I also do  not think that references to these documents (since they 
will not be truly archival)  should be used in archival documents in 
many places where RFC references are used now.

>	might mean more work for the IESG.

The document and presentation seemed to state that this would not 
mean more work for the IESG, and I don't  understand that view.  I 
know that you have tried to explain it to me, but it certainly seems 
like the IESG will have to approve more text and take more process 
steps with ISDs than without them.  That doesn't inherently make them 
a bad idea, but it does mean that I disagree with statements that say 
that this will not cause more work for the IESG, the secretariat 
and/or others.

One of the concerns that I have about this proposal is that it 
doesn't make it clear who would do this work, what motivations people 
who have to do the work and/or how much this proposal would costs (in 
secretariat/editor time, computer resources, further delays to 
document publication, etc.).  IMO, if we want to start a new program 
of this sort, we should understand its costs and make sure that they 
are adequately outweighed by its value.

>dialogue about ISDs is useful, given those answers.

If you and others still believe that ISDs are the best way to fix a 
lot of problems facing the IETF, then we should keep talking about 
them, hopefully coming to some mutual understanding of what problems 
we are trying to fix and what is important to include in the ISD 
mechanism (and what isn't) in order to fix those problems.  At the 
end, perhaps we can reach a workable proposal.  I am not sure that 
will happen, but I am not as pessimistic about it as you seem to be 
right now.

Margaret

.

---

From: mcr <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:44:32 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Margaret" == Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]> writes:
    Margaret> I do _not_ think that publishing/updating these documents
    Margaret> after IESG approval is an adequate substitute for fixing
    Margaret> our document publication process so that new standards get
    Margaret> published in a timely manner.

  What do you think this fix would entail?

    Margaret> I also do not think that references to these documents
    Margaret> (since they will not be truly archival) should be used in
    Margaret> archival documents in many places where RFC references are
    Margaret> used now.

  Okay, fair enough.

  Do you feel confortable having an ISD'# (perhaps with a date),
listed in an RFP? 

    Margaret> understand that view.  I know that you have tried to
    Margaret> explain it to me, but it certainly seems like the IESG
    Margaret> will have to approve more text and take more process steps
    Margaret> with ISDs than without them.  That doesn't inherently make

  Yes, more steps.
  Each step smaller, and thus requiring less pondering.

  Also, since there are more steps, the appearance of progress will be
greater. That's important to authors (and their managers).

    Margaret> publication, etc.).  IMO, if we want to start a new
    Margaret> program of this sort, we should understand its costs and
    Margaret> make sure that they are adequately outweighed by its
    Margaret> value.

  I agree.

    Margaret> If you and others still believe that ISDs are the best way
    Margaret> to fix a lot of problems facing the IETF, then we should
    Margaret> keep talking about them, hopefully coming to some mutual
    Margaret> understanding of what problems we are trying to fix and
    Margaret> what is important to include in the ISD mechanism (and
    Margaret> what isn't) in order to fix those problems.  At the end,
    Margaret> perhaps we can reach a workable proposal.  I am not sure
    Margaret> that will happen, but I am not as pessimistic about it as
    Margaret> you seem to be right now.

  I believe that we need ISD-like documents.
  If we have to trade in DS or FS to get ISD, that's fine with me. 
If keeping DS or FS is important, fine --- at the rate they are used,
they might as well not exist. (And that is in our charter).

  Maybe the second stage of the process is that we create the ISD.
That is the *replacement* for the DS step. I think it was proposed that
an ISD would get created at PS stage, which is perhaps where the IESG
reluncantance to take on more work appears.

- -- 
] Michael Richardson          Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON |  firewalls  [
] mcr @ xelerance.com           Now doing IPsec training, see   |net architect[
] http://www.sandelman.ca/mcr/    www.xelerance.com/training/   |device driver[
]                    I'm a dad: http://www.sandelman.ca/lrmr/                 [

.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:35:14 -0500

> But I'm also realistic

Just out of curiosity, do others share the opinion "ISDs, or any other 
structural reform, is doomed if one or two IESG members decide they do 
not like the idea"?

Spencer 

.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 01:56:16 -0400

Hi Spencer,

At 12:35 AM -0500 6/9/05, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, do others share the opinion "ISDs, or any 
>other structural reform, is doomed if one or two IESG members decide 
>they do not like the idea"?

As I tried to indicate earlier, I don't think that this is 
necessarily the case...  When the IESG reviews a document, none of us 
will typically put a discuss on a document simply because we don't 
like it -- we use the abstain option for that.  We also try to avoid 
putting discusses on documents regarding issues that the WG has 
discussed, even if the WG reached a different consensus than we would 
have liked.

Of course, if we think that a proposal is unclear, can't be 
implemented and/or would be damaging to the IETF or the Internet, 
that is a different story.  But, we then try to explain what problems 
we see with the document in clear enough terms to allow the editors 
and the WG to address the problem.

Of course, none of us are perfect, so we might not always apply our 
criteria perfectly or explain our reasons clearly enough.  But, we do 
try to avoid blocking documents based only on our own personal 
preferences.

Margaret

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:17:18 +0200

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> As I tried to indicate earlier, I don't think that this is necessarily 
> the case...  When the IESG reviews a document, none of us will typically 
> put a discuss on a document simply because we don't like it -- we use 
> the abstain option for that.  We also try to avoid putting discusses on 
> documents regarding issues that the WG has discussed, even if the WG 
> reached a different consensus than we would have liked.
> 
> Of course, if we think that a proposal is unclear, can't be implemented 
> and/or would be damaging to the IETF or the Internet, that is a 
> different story.  But, we then try to explain what problems we see with 
> the document in clear enough terms to allow the editors and the WG to 
> address the problem.
> 
> try to avoid blocking documents based only on our own personal preferences.

To be legalistic, if the IESG deadlocks in its normal procedure, we
can go to the override procedure described at the end of this page:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_evaluation_desc

You'll note that the blocking minority in that procedure is 3.

Now it's my opinion, which I already stated once, that in a situation where
the IETF reached consensus on a process document, after an IETF Last Call,
but the IESG failed to approve it after an override vote, then the IETF
would win, but it would be messy for a while. But our goal isn't to get
there - it's surely to get to a consensus that the IESG will share.

     Brian

.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 11:00:19 -0400

Brian, Margaret, and others,

I can't speak for Spencer or Scott, but, having made one of the
comments that started this thread, the discussion has turned to
answers to a question that I never intended to pose.   So, to
identify the original question and issue, there are two separate
issues here...

(1) If there is clear IETF consensus around a procedural change,
will the IESG agree to make it?  It seems to me that is the
question you are trying to address when you comment on
deadlock-breaking procedures, voting patterns, and what would
happen if the IESG declined to make changes the IETF wanted.
There is a sub-issue here about how much consensus needs to
exist in the IETF, and how loudly it would need to be expressed,
if the IESG were, for whatever reason, suffering from hearing
difficulties about positions it didn't like a priori.  Let's
stipulate that the IETF position would sooner or later prevail,
with the general understanding that, should it be needed, some
flavor of bloody revolution lies at the end of that road and
that we all have incentives to avoid having things go that far.

But my comment was not about whether ISDs would be adopted given
community consensus.  It was about...

(2) Consider the nature of the ISD idea as proposed in the I-D
and most of the newtrk discussions.  ISDs, as proposed that way,
would be useful or not to the extent to which the IESG chose to
use them intelligently to document relationships within and
between standards.  Conversely, they could be "proven" to be
useless, ineffective, too costly to use, or generally not worth
the trouble, if the IESG, or even a few IESG members, wanted
that result.   No votes needed.  No documentation in trackers or
otherwise needed.  All that would be needed was a resolve to not
use the things, or to not let even the slightest modification
occur without a good dose of the sitting in "AD evaluation"
followed by nit-picking and hair-splitting that has sometimes
characterized approval of RFCs for standards-track publication.

Regardless of precisely how one defines ISDs, what should go
into them, and how that is defined, the idea has a key weakness
that would exist until they had been in use for long enough for
precedents and tradition to be set.  They are designed as a
mechanism for unifying information and documenting details and
small changes that is lighter weight and faster than going
through the process of issuing new/revised RFCs.   We can
continue to argue about how much information they should
contain, or how much things should be automated, but the
principle of "relatively light weight" is key and, as soon as
even small amounts of metadata are injected, decisions will need
to be made that reflect some sort of consensus process.

If the IESG's membership decides, for whatever reason and
whether explicitly or just by behavior patterns, that
lightweight ISDs are inappropriate, that every word is important
and the proper topic of endless debate or negotiation, or the
like, then ISDs will fail and we will be back to where we are
today, only with more overhead.  To some degree, an IESG
prediction that ISDs will add too much extra work is a
self-fulfilling prophecy: even one or two IESG members could
make that happen, and make it happen to the extent that it is
clear to everyone that ISDs are too much work and too expensive.
No votes required and possible even in spite of "adoption" votes.

And _that_ is why I've made comments to the effect that I
believe that even one or two IESG members could cause ISDs to
fail if they were not enthused about the idea.   An IESG
willingness to go along with an IETF consensus is, in this area,
not nearly enough and, to some extent, discussing the "votes to
approve" topic is almost irrelevant.

     john
 
--On Thursday, 09 June, 2005 11:17 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>>>  enough to know that ISDs, or any other structural reform,
>>>>  is doomed if one or two IESG members decide they do not
>>>>  like the idea and at this point the nay-sayers on the IESG
>>>>  have enough votes.
>>>> 
>>>>  Scott

>>> Just out of curiosity, do others share the opinion "ISDs, or
>>> members decide they do  not like the idea"?
>> 
>> necessarily  the case...  When the IESG reviews a document,
>> none of us will typically  put a discuss on a document simply
>> because we don't like it -- we use  the abstain option for
>> that.  We also try to avoid putting discusses on  documents
>> regarding issues that the WG has discussed, even if the WG 
>>...

.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:10:31 -0700

Brian,

>  would win, but it would be messy for a while. 

I believe your assessment is correct.  I also believe it underscore a core 
problem in the IETF today.  

That an IETF rough consensus would get any pushback from the IESG suggests 
rather strongly that the current authority model is broken.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:39:27 +0200

> rather strongly that the current authority model is broken.

No, Dave, it just suggests that things look different when viewed from
different directions. For example, you may recall that slightly over 10 years
ago, a recent ex-AD appealed against inaction by the IESG that he had
recently left. Perspectives do vary according to where you sit at a given
moment and what responsibilities you have.

    Brian

.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:17:29 -0700

> >  That an IETF rough consensus would get any pushback from the IESG
> >  suggests rather strongly that the current authority model is broken.
> >
>  different directions. For example, you may recall that slightly over 10
>  years ago, a recent ex-AD appealed against inaction by the IESG that he
>  had

recall it, indeed.

what i do not, understand, however, is how that event or anyone's 
recollection of it is particularly significant for the point I was 
responding to.

Failure to take action on a specific couple of Proposed Standard 
documents is rather fundamentally different from failure to take action 
on a community-wide decision to change the IETF's process.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

.