Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]
Let me add three observations to Ken's rather interesting
tabulation (without having read all of the traffic since then --
if someone else has said this, I apologize)...
--On Friday, July 01, 2005 1:02 AM -0400 Ken Carlberg
From: Brian E Carpenter
I'm supposed to be on vacation so this will be brief, but I
don't think that your assertion about what "the community"
has said is backed up by postings from a sufficient number
of people to be a community view. Most people in the
community haven't posted one way or the other. I haven't
counted, but in the recent discussions about the hop by hop
option, I've seen a number of messages agreeing with the
IESG's decision, contrasted with a large number of critical
postings from just a few people.
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect.
in taking the position that respondents can be classified as
either: a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b)
dissatisfied or uncomfortable with the decision, or c) could
not be clearly determined by the content of their response, I
came up with the following list.
Dissatisfied Satisfied Other
------------ --------- -----
Robert Elz Thomas Narten Barbara Roseman
John Leslie Sam Hartman Yakov Rekhter
Ken Carlberg Bob Hinden Scott Brim
Ralph Droms Brian Carpenter Spencer Dawkins
Steve Silverman Allison Mankin Thomas Hruska
Jefsey Morfin Harald Alvestrand Randy Presuhn
John Klensin Keith Moore Scott Bradner
Nick Staff Bill Sommerfeld
Lawrence Roberts Eliot Lear
Vint Cerf Joel Halpern
Dave Crocker Margaret Wasserman
Ned Freed Jeffrey Hutzelman
I listed names so that people could object to my
interpretation, and I'm sure I made a mistake or two. But at
best, it seems the reaction is split, and not to be viewed as
objections coming from simply a few but persistant people.
(i) Of the people in the left-hand column, there are at least a
few who believe either that the proposed protocol is a dubious
idea or even that the registration request should, in the last
analysis, be rejected. Their objection is to the process the
IESG followed, the assumptions about authority the IESG made in
following it, and/or the way in which the IESG explained its
decision. In that regard, there may be some overlap with some
members of the "other" group: some of the "other" group might
reasonable be classified with the "dissatisfied" or vice versa.
Certainly few of the "others" are completely happy at this point.
(ii) It is interesting to note that there are present or former
ADs in all three groups, but that, of the 12 people in the
"satisfied" group, fully half are current, or immediately past,
ADs. By contrast, there are zero people in either of the other
two lists who are now ADs or who have served as ADs since March
2003. One could probably interpret that factoid in several
ways, but one cannot help but notice that, if one excluded IESG
members defending either a recent IESG action or general IESG
perceptions of its role from the second group, it would be the
shortest of the three lists.
(iii) By my rough and subjective count (I, too, am supposedly on
vacation and hence suffering from impeded connectivity), the
"few people" making a "large number of postings" are distributed
among the first two groups, with neither group having a monopoly
on that particular distinction.
Ietf mailing list