On 4/25/2014 7:56 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
An obvious counterexample is what recently happened in perpass and
the various works it has started. Regardless of what anyone thinks of
perpass or its outcome, a fair characterization is that it was an
IETF repsonse to the message delivered by Snoden et al.
Yup. It's a singular example, but that's the point. It's not what the
IETF (usually) does.
It's fine that it's being attempted and it might (or might not) prove
useful. But there is no pattern of the IETF doing such a thing.
My point was not meant as a statement of philosophy or criticism of the
IETF, but a description of the long-term operational model that covers
its actual history.
That model is for initiatives to come from the grass roots of the
community, seeking facilitation within the IETF. These do not depend
upon strategic management directions being set.
And maybe something has changed since the four years I spent going to
IESG retreats, but I recall lots of discussion of how the IETF as an
organization should respond to various industry trends.
Yes, we often have such discussions. My observation is that it has
typically had little or no effect on what work is actually done, absent
initiative from the community.
With respect to getting work done, this is a bottom-up organization, not
a top-down one. (That's why I think Area "Director" is a serious
misnomer and Area "Facilitator" would be far more accurate.)
But it seems pretty clear that people regard the IETF as
a bit more than that. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
Yes, there is quite a bit of mythology about the IETF. Sometimes it
borders on mysticism...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net