Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]

Brian,

Let me add three observations to Ken's rather interesting 
tabulation (without having read all of the traffic since then -- 
if someone else has said this, I apologize)...
--On Friday, July 01, 2005 1:02 AM -0400 Ken Carlberg 
<carlberg(_at_)g11(_dot_)org(_dot_)uk> wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter
> >
> > I'm supposed to be on vacation so this will be brief, but I
> > don't  think that your assertion about what "the community"
> > has said is  backed up by postings from a sufficient number
> > of people to be a  community view.  Most people in the
> > community haven't posted one way  or the other. I haven't
> > counted, but in the recent discussions about  the hop by hop
> > option, I've seen a number of messages agreeing with  the
> > IESG's decision, contrasted with a large number of critical
> > postings from just a few people.
> My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect.
> in taking the position that respondents can be classified as
> either:  a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b)
> dissatisfied or  uncomfortable with the decision, or c) could
> not be clearly  determined by the content of their response, I
> came up with the  following list.
>
> Dissatisfied         Satisfied               Other
> ------------         ---------               -----
> Robert Elz           Thomas Narten              Barbara Roseman
> John Leslie              Sam Hartman            Yakov Rekhter
> Ken Carlberg         Bob Hinden             Scott Brim
> Ralph Droms              Brian Carpenter        Spencer Dawkins
> Steve Silverman      Allison Mankin             Thomas Hruska
> Jefsey Morfin        Harald Alvestrand      Randy Presuhn
> John Klensin         Keith Moore            Scott Bradner
> Nick Staff               Bill Sommerfeld
> Lawrence Roberts           Eliot Lear
> Vint Cerf                Joel Halpern
> Dave Crocker         Margaret Wasserman
> Ned Freed                Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Grenville Armitage
> Hans Kruse
>
> I listed names so that people could object to my
> interpretation, and I'm sure I made a mistake or two.  But at
> best, it seems the reaction is split, and not to be viewed as
> objections coming from simply a few but persistant people.
(i) Of the people in the left-hand column, there are at least a 
few who believe either that the proposed protocol is a dubious 
idea or even that the registration request should, in the last 
analysis, be rejected.  Their objection is to the process the 
IESG followed, the assumptions about authority the IESG made in 
following it, and/or the way in which the IESG explained its 
decision.   In that regard, there may be some overlap with some 
members of the "other" group: some of the "other" group might 
reasonable be classified with the "dissatisfied" or vice versa. 
Certainly few of the "others" are completely happy at this point.
(ii) It is interesting to note that there are present or former 
ADs in all three groups, but that, of the 12 people in the 
"satisfied" group, fully half are current, or immediately past, 
ADs.  By contrast, there are zero people in either of the other 
two lists who are now ADs or who have served as ADs since March 
2003.  One could probably interpret that factoid in several 
ways, but one cannot help but notice that, if one excluded IESG 
members defending either a recent IESG action or general IESG 
perceptions of its role from the second group, it would be the 
shortest of the three lists.
(iii) By my rough and subjective count (I, too, am supposedly on 
vacation and hence suffering from impeded connectivity), the 
"few people" making a "large number of postings" are distributed 
among the first two groups, with neither group having a monopoly 
on that particular distinction.
      john


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf