Joel M. Halpern
joel at stevecrocker.com
Tue Jun 3 21:14:11 CEST 2003
I think we are each making assumptions about the history that led to this,
and it would not surprise me if we are making different assumptions.
Note that I do not have data to back my understanding / memory, so I may
well be confused.
My understanding is that the higher bar to PS arose as a consequence of
things being widely deployed at PS and things not advancing to Draft rather
than the deployment and non-advancement being a consequence of the high bar.
This is important in the sense that if the lack of advancement came first,
then simply lowering the bar will not help us get better standards, and in
fact could result in our ending up with lower quality documents permanently.
Joel M. Halpern
At 05:03 PM 6/3/2003 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote (in response to Dave Crocker):
>As you correctly point out the IETF (and as implemented by the IESG) is
>not using the standards process we have defined. It has been changed
>where the initial barrier has been raised very high at Proposed Standard
>and hardy anything gets to Draft standard, let alone (Full) Standard.
>I think that many of the problems folks are complaining about stem from
>this. It causes the IESG to worry about letting a document get to PS that
>is not perfect. This results in many detailed reviews and documents being
>blocked for what might seem minor reasons. This in turn creates a work
>load on the IESG that is close to impossible. The resulting delays cause
>frustration between authors, chairs, working groups, AD, etc. I think
>that a lot of this stems from trying to make PS the biggest hurdle.
More information about the Problem-statement