HTA> I try to work from the theory that neither of the parties involved in this
HTA> conflict are technically incompetent or deliberately malicious.
That's why talking about "intentions" or even "competence" in these
discussions is usually not very helpful. So, it's a good thing that I
did not do that.
HTA> Assigning "blame" to one party, and appearing to declare their actions to
HTA> have no possible rational explanation, is not compatible with this theory.
I do not recall "declar[ing] their actions to have no possible rational
explanation". What text are you referring to?
I was careful in my characterization of the problem being discussed. It
was a very specific situation, and it does occur.
Now, I do acknowledge that the word "blame" is uncomfortable, but it has
the correct denotation for its use.
We are discussing problems. Problems have causes. The word "blame" is an
efficient and precise term for referring to the source (cause) of a
However, saying something like "we should focus our attention on the source of
the difficulty, rather than suggest focusing our attention on those who
are the object of it" strikes me as awkward enough to be silly.
Please remember that I was responding to a note from you in which you
HTA> even if a WG feels abused by the IESG, or its AD, that's no excuse for a WG
HTA> not fighting back - in this case, by rapidly removing the IESG's apparent
HTA> excuses for delay.
In other words, you appear to be saying that a working group should be
expected to perform any action imposed on them, no matter how
unreasonable. Perhaps that is not what you meant, but it is the meaning
I take from your sentence.
And it is a position with which I disagree strongly.
When an inappropriate requirement is imposed on a working group,
the correct action is to remove the requirement.
It is not appropriate to tell the working group that they have
"no excuse.. [for not] rapidly removing the IESG's apparent
excuses for delay."
HTA> (Note that one party's actions being *wrong* when viewed in hindsight is
HTA> *not* incompatible with the theory!)
Sometimes a problem is truly due to a "systems" difficulty, in which all
of the participants have a problem in the overall interaction. In these
cases, it is extremely counter-productive to assign blame.
However, I described a very specific situation and I was (and am)
claiming that this is not a "system" problem but a problem in the
administration of the process. Hence it is appropriate to focus on
those doing this kind of problematic administration.
You may well respond that their administration is not the problem. Given
the conditions that I specified, it would be extremely helpful to hear
why it is acceptable to delay competent work that conforms to its
charter and has no known technical problems.
However it is not true that everyone always performs well. There are
In these cases, we need to discuss the error and its cause, so we can
discuss how to fix it.
We are not going to make progress fixing the IETF's problems if people
have no permission to speak frankly.
We are one year after Yokohama, and no changes have yet been made.
For that matter, we have little participation in the discussions.
That should worry folks, quite a lot.
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>