However, I don't see delay
at this point in time assisting our cause. In fact, the
general membership of the IETF (whatever that means) has very
few lawyers, and probably very few MBAs. One would have to
wait a LONG time for community consensus.
1. Nothing about the reorganization is going to make IETF
standards be more useful or be produced significantly more
quickly. Hence, reorganization has nothing to do with the really
serious threats to IETF long-term survival.
2. The current sense of crisis has mostly come from a loss of
revenue. Nothing about the reorganization will necessarily fix
3. The rest of the sense of crisis is due to interaction problems
between some people in IETF leadership and some people in the
organizations that the IETF uses for services. Nothing in the
reorganization is certain to improve any of that, especially
since we do not have precise statements of work for them. (There
is a rather mystical sense that the reorganization will fix these
issues, but in fact nothing in the simplistic, superficial way
that we are proceeding should give us any sense that that
improvement is likely. Quite the opposite.)
4. Most of the reorganization process has been pursued with
partial statements, incomplete plans, and assertions of urgency.
It certainly has not been conducted in a way that attended to
concerns as they were raised. Quite the opposite.
So the view that "delay" will not assist us amounts to a
statement that we should not worry about the considerable range
of serious problems in how we have been pursuing organization, or
with our community ignorance about what we are doing, but we
should charge ahead (blindly) just to get it over with.
I am trying to imagine any sort of serious protocol development
process that used that sort of logic and then had acceptance
Ietf mailing list