Standards
John C Klensin
john-ietf at jck.com
Wed Feb 19 09:19:08 CET 2003
--On Wednesday, 19 February, 2003 20:46 +0700 Robert Elz
<kre at munnari.OZ.AU> wrote:
>...
> This is also (IMO) contributing to the (IMO unreasonable)
> demand for perfection in everything published as a PS, because
> most people realise that for most documents, that's as far as
> they'll ever actually go. Not because they wouldn't qualify
> for more, but because no-one has enough interest in doing the
> extra work.
Let me suggest a different, but equally problematic,
interpretation of the same data. If the IESG (and RFC Editor ?)
insists on perfection at PS, doing so sufficiently exhausts
people and process that there is no energy for doing the work to
advance the document further. In this model, a lighter-weight
approach to PS might produce somewhat weaker documents, probably
much more rapidly. Such documents, and the reduced level of
burnout from producing them, might then provide both more
incentive and more energy for going to Draft.
Same issue, same symptoms, different cause and effect
hypothesis. It is probably worthwhile to document both
hypotheses.
regards,
john
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list