-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Keith Moore wrote:
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically
astute people and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who
which people are in which category.
On both counts.
yes, and yes. But there are far fewer egocentric fools in IESG than
among those disagreeing with IESG.
Only because the IESG is a smaller set, IMO.
The real trick for IESG is to pay due attention to valid comments
without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but otherwise
intelligent fools.
Ditto for the IETF paying attention to ADs, IMO.
nor are [ADs] immune from favoring one of a number of equally
valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures
(e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs).
NAT vs. non-NAT are not equally valid, by any stretch of the
imagination.
While I agree, that hasn't been the position of the ADs, or the IETF as
a whole over time.
...
The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices - like
the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is essential for
doing good engineering, and for reviewing others' engineering work.
Which is why I am suspicious of how the ADs endorsed NATs for political
(IMO) reasons when they first came out, and how we were encouraged to
support them where possible, even when they violated the basic tenets of
the Internet architecture expressed by existing Internet Standard docs.
The point here isn't NATs; it's that whether something is an
architectural, correctness, corporate, or personal rant is a matter of
perspective in many cases.
It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except
the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly
not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. -
although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an
alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have
the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply.
ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM.
- From a self-selected set of those who filled out applications - based on
a filter of hurdles.
...
And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at
meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR
positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case
to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call.
If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't
have a unique right to overrides.
ADs don't have a "right" to override anything. They are, however,
entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the
organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened people
to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting
people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting, and sometimes
incompetent statements on behalf of the organization.
So we have a smaller set entrusted to do the same? The setsize isn't the
issue; it's the imbalance of control.
The latter kind of organization would be useless, and its imprimatur
would carry negative weight, because only the incompetent would work
there.
Keith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCemHdE5f5cImnZrsRAinpAJ9N+mNBywIZQUOIxSezTB3QecbyvQCdHXnQ
zH20m28ff0wJjUHRas+p7WY=
=SKuy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf