My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since
nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead.
And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement
that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to
describe the decision as having been made in private.
If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was.
Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top
down.
If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up
then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to
state their reasons.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many
things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the
whole bundle down.
Russ
On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even
knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private
as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should
have a say. So much for bottom up organization.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf