From 3929:
"In discussions regarding this document, several points have been
raised about the viability of any mechanism that requires consensus
to use an alternative to consensus-based decision making. Some
individuals have pointed out that groups having trouble achieving
consensus on a technical matter may have similar problems achieving
consensus on a procedural matter. Others have been concerned that
this will be used as an attempt to end-run around rough consensus.
These are valid concerns, and they point both to the need to retain
rough consensus as the baseline mechanism and the need to exercise
caution when using these alternate methods. More importantly though,
they highlight the nature of these alternatives. They are primarily
mechanisms that allow people to recognize the need for compromise in
a new way, by backing away from entrenched technical positions and by
putting the technical choice in the hands of the broader community.
They highlight that the choice for each participant is now between
achieving a result and failure.
There is a fundamental tension between the IETF community's desire to
get the best decision for a particular technical problem and its
desire to get a decision that has community buy-in in the form of
rough consensus. These mechanisms cannot resolve that fundamental
tension. They may, however, provide a way forward in some situations
that might otherwise end in a deadlock or stagnation."
That's a power grab? Personally it seems it's only a power grab in
the case of politikers stubbornly refusing consensus for bad reasons, or
fear of people not deeply involved making an unbiased decision that can't be
blocked. I've not read many documents that were so passive in just
suggesting a solution to a problem that can *optionally* be implemented if
it helps.
On another note, usage of "The IETF will become irelevant if
_______" prognostication seems to be proliferating these days.
-Tom
thomasgal(_at_)lumenvox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Paul
Iadonisi
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 7:36 AM
To: MXCOMP LIST
Subject: Re: Sender-ID != SPF
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 07:29, James Couzens wrote:
[snip]
There exists a very amusing /. post which had a would be chat
involving client's whose names represented the various parties with
vested interest in the outcome of this WG's efforts. I'm
not going to
post it here but its exceptionally amusing, and
unfortunately a very
accurate representation of the events that took place here.
Hopefully
we won't see a repeat of this in the future.
Unfortunately, with the apparent power-grab of RFC3929, I
think we're likely to see much, much worse.
I was skeptical of those who said that many see the IETF as
losing its relevance. I fear that if RFC3929 moves beyond
experimental status, then that will come true very quickly,
if it's not already.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see
a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets