----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>;
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but
your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not
be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant -
process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG
Why should I - this is a standards process not a Church or an organized
religion. Faith is what you put into processes and things unknown and that
IS NOT what the IETF's Standards Process is/are supposed to be.
aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers),
No Ted - they are formally appointed "staff members" in formally defined
roles with defined standing. The fact that they were given a vote also gave
them a liability as well - I bet Jorge and the other lawyers ever told you
As to them being compensated staff - they are exactly that. They are
compensated for their standing "by a tremendous value to their professional
careers" and they accept that value in lieu of formal compensation, so
although they are not paid formally, they are exactly that - compensated
But Ted - you keep dancing around language to try and keep the IESG from
being responsible - its what you folks do best as far as I can tell.
but at the same
time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have
clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in
good faith, and that no harm was done.
Who cares what the vast majority of people here think This list has 30 or 40
members of the IETF talking and that is it. If that constitutes a VAST
MAJORITY of anything within the IETF... well I am betting the rest of the
list gets the point.
You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and
strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility.
So then you are saying that the right way to address the IEWSG is to kiss
its *ss and that this is the way to get things done?
So if you
do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit
more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve
your goals better than your current style of attacking people like
Brian and other IESG members.
Ted - you take an attack on the system as an attack against you personally
or Brian and that documents the the issues herein and your own gross
incompetence to stand in any role where you are makling decisions about
others IP Initiatives.
Bluntly Ted - this IETF needs a total overhaul and you and the the rest of
the IESG who are desparately trying to protect their Jobs need to be shown
the door IMHO.
Sorry but its the histrory of your (the IESG's) gross screw-ups. A blanket
history of approving process after process and implementing it without
bothering to get any of the Sponsor's legal agreements. You crack me up...
this is basic organizational dynamics 101 and any first year OR student
could see the flaws here.
Ietf mailing list