On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:08:51AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
No, the IETF needs to demonstrate that it is CAPABLE of change.
Changing the workings of the IETF (and in this case the document format)
to prove that it's possible (or to show that the IETF can do so) is not
attractive to me in any way.
Changing the document format in a way that benefits the Internet and the
community at large (or even in a way that made IETF business easier to
conduct) is worth considering. I've heard several arguments along those
lines, but remain unconvinced.
The Internet has changed and will continue to change. If the IETF
wants to remain relevant to the future of the Internet it must change
as well. Note that 'remaining relevant' is not exactly a stretch goal
"The IETF must change" is content-free. If you can find someone to
argue that the IETF needs to remain static, please argue with them.
That person is not me.
How familiar the bureaucrat's definition of priorities: 'needed for
the good of the institution'. Does this mean that you think that the
IETF only exists to serve its own interests?
Sorry I wasn't clear: the IETF process (and document formats) are
conventions that we as a community share to do our collective work.
When they facilitate that work, those conventions are for the good of
the institution because they enable the institution to help humanity.
Changing those conventions in ways that impede the function of the
institution is bad for the people in the community and the society as a
IMHO changing these conventions just to demonstrate that such a thing is
possible, or only to show that the institution is collectively capable
of doing such a thing, rather than because the convention is impeding
the work of the institution (and the benefit to humanity) is a waste.
I can be more explicit if my position is unclear, but an interpretation
that I am trying to perpetuate the current conventions of the IETF for
the purpose of perpetuating the current conventions of the IETF is a
pretty serious misinterpretation of my position.
Be advised, I consider the implication that I am a bureaucrat an insult.
http://www.isi.edu/~faber PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
Description: PGP signature
Ietf mailing list