Hi,
You seem to be asserting that in your judgement the IETF process
is broken, at least for this mailing list/working group and maybe in
general. I say the success of this working group depends entirely on the
behavior of its participants, like you and I.
So, I suggest to you that we start numbering the issues and
requirements, as you had constructively suggested in an earlier e-mail.
This can go a long way towards clarifying the group's design direction...
As for this observation:
The proceedings of the IETF have always been in English, and
all the specs are in English. If you are not fluent in English
you are going to be unable to make more than a limited
contribution.
It has been my experience that the IETF has many contributors for whom
English is a difficult challenge. When interacting with them
professionally on the mailing lists, I strive to extend extra effort to
understand, interpret, and include them on an equal footing. In my
experience, they can contribute more effectively on a mailing list than
a conference call, because they can enlist colleagues to help them
participate and compose e-mail that overcomes language barriers.
And with respect:
The IETF is run in exactly the way that most engineers would
like to work, free from deadlines, accountability and with
infinite scope to achieve technical perfection. The results
are pretty predictable.
YMMV. I have worked in IETF groups that completed a proposed standard RFC
in less than two years, and others that never got past dissent. IMHO, it
is too early to predict what MASS will do. Again, I would encourage
enumerating the issues/requirements on this list, that would be a good
first step towards success.
br,
George