John R Levine wrote:
- partly because it's consuming energy from those who would work on more
useful goals if they were chartered, partly because of the need for
damage control,
This must be a different group of people from the ones who I find on the
DKIM list. If we wanted to work on something else, we would be doing so,
and although I may overrate our collective wisdom, I don't think we're all
working on DKIM purely because we are too dim to imagine anything else.
I think the silliness of this thread should be underscored with particulars,
rather than merely noting the (entirely correct) basic principle that you cite:
The IETF DKIM effort is version FOUR of a continuous line of effort that has
demonstrated substantial increases in number and variety of participants, number
and variety of implemtations, and amount of traffic supported, at each
increment.
The concept of an increasing spiral of inclusiveness has generally been viewed
in the standards world as a key requirement for success. Design-by-committee
does not work, but long-term control by a cabal does not either (most of the
time.) The spiral solves both problems, as long as the effort is truly
incremental. What the spiral does is to a) refine the work, and b) demonstrate
increasing support for it, among the community that is going to use it.
What has been interesting to note is that the IETF used to be a distinctively
useful place for moving through the spiral, but it is tending instead to be a
place for increasing indeterminacy and delay, both due to sclerotic -- thanks to
Michael for this apt term -- formal procedures and the single-person veto we
essentially allow. (And, here, I am not referring to IESG issues, but rather
the way we fail to require critics to develop support before we attend to them,
no matter how silly their criticism.)
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf