nuclear option (was Re: RMON document advancement)

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

David Kessens wrote:

> >.....
>
> Basically, we are in a serious need for some people to finally have
> the courage to actually go for the nuclear option to make sure that
> the agenda for process reform gets set the proper way (eg. we discuss
> making things simpler instead of more complicated).
> > ....

I'm just wondering...
Did this whole zeal for a rigid and precise, documented process
come about because a few WGs were 2 or 3 std. deviations
out from the expected norm for quality and/or quantity of work done?

I've seen many times in my corporate past, the tendency to push
massive process changes on the entire division because it was
easier (for the VP) than facing the few problem cases directly.

But I guess this is part of the overall "speed up and improve everything"
initiative, which (IMO) is itself slowing us down and not improving
anything.

If you and Bert need a document to go along with some sort
of official IESG statement-of-process-change, then I will
help write it.   I expect the boilerplate to be larger than the
actual text (an ironic statement in itself), but that's the I-D tax
everyone has to pay these days.

It's only a "nuclear option" to those who really believe in the 3-step
standards process.  I doubt that many people care.  What does a STD
MIB really mean?  It's been used a long time, and not been replaced.
You can tell that from the revision history.

> David Kessens
>  

Andy