ISSUE: Procedural rapid ossification

[Spencer Dawkins]

Dear John (Klensin),

I look forward to the Vienna meeting with increased anticipation.

Thank you for the slap across the face ("thanks, I needed that").

Since you mention I-D submission deadlines specifically -
I remember the Munich IETF, and hearing from an IAB member
who missed the I-D cutoff by several minutes (less than 10), so
we couldn't discuss the proposal (can't remember if it was a WG
document or not).

After that, I've had very high regard for the IETF's rules.

You are suggesting that my regard might have been a little TOO
high. An interesting thought.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>
To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: ISSUE: Procedural rapid ossification


> A number of list transactions/ discussions in the last few 
> weeks, and a few recent offline discussions, have convinced me 
> that we have another problem that both belongs on the list and 
> calls for thought about this WG, its processes, and those it is 
> spawning.
> 
> Summary: In a system that is designed around having firm general 
> principles and considerable IESG discretion within those 
> principles, we are showing a disturbing tendency to turn IESG 
> "rules of convenience" into rigid strictures that cannot be 
> violated or deviated from.  It is a bad combination.
> 

[deleted rest of interesting e-mail]