Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Well;-)...  A really good discussion has occurred;-)...

Gordon and Brian got it right in terms of my intentions.

Let me clarify.

Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption 
of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as 
long as all work to be adopted must go through THE IETF WG process 
before it gets to the IESG.
But, to suggest that it must never have been worked on elsewhere, if 
you want the IETF to bless it, is a perfect example of my concern 
about the IETF Skin (i.e., Protective Membrane)  getting in the way 
of progress.
All you are really arguing about is whether the OPES BOF GROUP can 
have meeting space at the IETF meeting, not whether or not they can 
work on it elsewhere and bring the work forward when it is more fully 
baked.
Of course they can work on it anywhere they want, and time that they want.
But, the attitude displayed here clearly says that one should

                "do it all inside the IETF!"

Now, if this quote is not what Keith and others mean to convey,
now is the time to correct the misinterpretations I and others are getting...

Of course, this notion of "do it all here" carries with it the right 
and ability of the IETF to control and regulate what is even 
discussed in other circles.
I am certain that this is an unintended consequence of the passage of 
time and circumstances, and that the result is clearly not desired. 
But there it is!
I agree that the points of confusion in this thread are subtle, and 
perhaps easily missed, but I have been observing the effects of the 
IETF skin (actually a pretty tough hide!) for many years now, going 
back to before the Boston Tea Party was held at the MIT IETF in 1992, 
and what I am seeing is a return to the pre-Tea Party days, when IETF 
had gravitated to a top-down control scheme, with a toughening hide.
It is interesting how such "skin" is mostly invisible to people 
inside organizations.  Of course, it is because the hide is 
protecting them from being bothered by or distracted by what is being 
blocked.
And, in the end, lots of people have come to see the IETF as being 
aloof or even hostile to many aspects of the internet.  I would name 
some, but I do not want to derail this discussion into an open 
discussion of those areas when it is the higher meta level problem 
that has surfaced here.
My hope is that all the smoke you are seeing here is a sign of a real 
fire that needs to be addressed.  My specific interests have no place 
in this discussion.
Cheers...\Stef

PS:  This is not the only case of organizational skin getting in the way of
     desired progress!  I see it in many volunteer groups that desperately
     want others to join, but which just cannot see how their skin is
     blocking the entrances...\s

At 12:01 -0700 25/06/01, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> At 10:27 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
> >  > So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
> >  > the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
> >  > done, if the results look good enough.
> >
> > No, that would be sheer lunacy.
> Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.
>
> > Because it's quite often the case that such work:
> >
> > - either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
> >   of view, or
> Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others 
> interested in the same problem.  Isn't that how all this got started?
> > - suffers from a lack of technical competence, or
> Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is 
> incompetent is just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the 
> IETF is competent. Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers 
> from a lack of technical competence.  Cluefulness is not a 
> prerequisite for attending an IETF meeting or attempting to 
> participate in a WG.  No, the playing field is pretty level here. 
> We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there is no metric 
> for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time.  You bring in the 
> whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the 
> threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in 
> the IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get 
> their little feelers hurt.
> > - was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
> >   to favor certain stakeholders over others
> That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good 
> ideas.  Good ideas come from individuals, not from committees or 
> organizations.  The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas.  If a 
> solution applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to 
> the larger problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's 
> mind to come up with the general solution.  Developing it within the 
> committee doesn't guarantee anything.
> > It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
> > parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
> > endorse the work of other groups.
> The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from. 
> The "protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF 
> does not always produce good work.  It is the good ideas of a few 
> which get adopted by the committee that makes a good protocol.
> <sigh>  Where is Bill Simpson saying, "You're wrong," (in that 
> abrasive and melodious voice of his) and the strong, clueful WG 
> chaircritter saying, "Bill's right, you don't know what you are 
> talking about so sit down and shut up."  The IETF could use some 
> more of that again.
> Yeah, Mo, a meritocracy, and people with merit can come from anywhere.
>
> So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the 
> IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely 
> educational and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good 
> protocol can be extremely educational and entertaining.  I don't see 
> how we can lose.
>
> Brian Lloyd
> brian(_at_)lloyd(_dot_)com
> +1.530.676.1113 - voice
> +1.360.838.9669 - fax