I'm trying to give a constructive response near the end - and it turns out
that a lot of the things you wish for match up with the things I have tried
to start us executing..... those who wish to skip the name game can search
--On 4. mars 2004 16:39 +0900 Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
HTA> could you please quote people by name?
This will probably devolve into a yes-you-did, no-i-didn't exchange,
thereby nicely distracting us all from the focus of my posting.
However, just so no one thinks that I constructed these:
However things have changed. That change was nicely summarized a
couple of years ago by someone who is now an area director. He
said that, really, working groups work for the area director. The
IESG really makes the standards.
This was said by Jon Peterson, in the IMPP working group, before he
became an area director.
Frankly, I was so shocked by the statement that I wanted to go talk to the
relevant AD and figure out where his head was at - asking the question of
each of them in turn didn't seem optimal.
If someone says they do not trust you because they usually disagree
with you, then they are missing this essential point. And, indeed,
that appears to be a pervasive problem in the IETF today.
In a public mail thread concerning trust, you said that you do not
trust me because you disagree with me so often.
Thanks for pointing this out, and giving me the chance of quoting what I
said at the time.....
, I said:
"Trust networks" may be the wrong term too; while I don't trust Dave
Crocker's proposals for action that much (I disagree with him too
often!), I do trust him to care about many of the same things I do - and
we do have a long history together. So he's part of my "network" in a
way that many others aren't - but calling it a "trust network" may be
simplistic. (apologies for using you as a named example again, Dave!)
Google is wonderful.
My mentioning these will probably be taken as a personal response, but
I made a point of not doing the citations in my original postings,
hoping to avoid this concern.
Thanks for coming forth with those.
I think the quote above illustrates well why I like to use quotes, and make
source data for my assertions available where possible: I agree with a lot
of what you say about the situation we want to have, but believe your
statements about the current situation are incorrect. I think we're a lot
closer to where you want to be than you claim we are.
Did you have any comments about the constructive points in my posting,
rather than the points being offered as background?
Since I have come off my adrenaline kick from seeing the first quote you
quoted, I think I should go back to my preparations for tonight's plenary,
but I'll attempt a response.....
My own version of the urgent needs is:
1. Better quality work, where quality covers such things as
utility and efficiency of the design.
Agreed. See the chartering of ICAR and the discussions we have there.
2. More timely work, so its consumers get it when they need it.
Agreed. See the PROTO team for one example of trying to speed things up.
But the majority of a document's IETF time is still spent in the WGs.
3. More accountable lines (and processes) of IETF management, so
that things happen predictably, appropriately, and in the best
interests of the IETF community
Agreed. However, we have chosen to build an organization that depends on
human judgment, not mechanistic decision-making - and I think appropriately
so. Humans are notoriously hard to predict, so we should be careful that
our strife towards predictability does not interfere with other values we
hold high. Again, the devil is in the details.
4. Stable funding, so that the IETF can attend to its work without
Agreed, with the proviso that we also need a clear, understandable and
accountable structure for handling the economic side of the IETF operation;
that's the essence of the advcomm and adminrest documents.
I do believe our goals are compatible......