On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 10:34:10AM -0500, Eric Rosen allegedly wrote:
Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the
values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine
objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a
properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but
would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable
technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular
vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical
quality.)
..
Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF
is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant
input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think
that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long
as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my
personal vision of the future."
The IETF has to have a unifying vision, or else the Internet will be a
hodgepodge. It can have different facets at different layers, and the
IETF should limit itself to activities where that vision is important,
but you need one. The vision may come from the participants, but the
IESG is the focal point where that vision is expressed (imposed).
In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not
necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may
place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes
it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the
charter.
Well, that would be a sign of AD weakness. The vision requires input,
and the IESG does need to learn, but there needs to be integration.