Killing old/slow groups - transition thinking

[John C Klensin]

--On Saturday, 14 December, 2002 12:12 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Saturday, December 14, 2002, 11:52:41 AM, you wrote:
> John>   But I believe that, were we to shift the
> John> PS norms and WG behaviors so that industry typically saw 
> ...
> John> we would see some behavior shifts.
> 
> It is easier to change an IETF procedure than it is to change
> an industry perception.  Remember that this is an industry
> that does not yet really understand the difference between an
> RFC and an IETF standards track specification, in spite of our
> diligently trying to make the distinction for more than 10
> years.

The "industry" is not monolithic.  Some understand, some don't.
Some would benefit from better understanding, some would not.
Such is life.

> So, rather than try to get the industry to appreciate a subtle
> change in meaning of PS, let's just make better use of an
> existing classification. Even better is that the associated
> word "experimental" is considerably more tentative than
> "proposed".
> 
> Yes, it still seeks differential understanding of different
> RFC sub-labels, but at least it does not involve changing the
> meaning of an existing sub-label.

But I am not suggesting a change in the meaning of the label.  I
am suggesting that we take our current definitions seriously.
If we are not going to take them seriously, _then_ I would argue
that we are obligated to change the definitions to reflect our
practice and reality.

    john