--On Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:20 AM -0700 todd glassey
<tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net> wrote:
John - the problem, is that management doesn't want either of
us to gain any traction on reform or process with real
oversight, and actually for all my
ssssssssssssssssssssssssscreaming into the wind all I really
want is a process that actually is fair and open.
Again - I think the answer is a cafeteria style
standardization process where the IETF nor IESG are
responsible for the actual promotion of proposed standard to
standard status ...
Todd,
I think you are describing no standardization process at all.
Maybe it would be a specification-publishing process, but
perhaps anyone could do that with a few web pages and an ability
to shout "people should pay attention to me" and then see if
anyone listens.
Again, if you have a proposal that is specific enough to stand
careful review and scrutiny, then write it up as a well-formed
I-D and get it posted. At the moment, my assumption is that
even your definition of "fair and open" differs from the general
consensus of the IETF community _and_ that of the implementer/
user community. No amount of mailing list posting will reverse
that assumption, only a proposal that is specific enough to
really evaluate.
Without such a proposal, you are doing little more than
screaming "I don't like the way it works, you are required to
change it" over and over again. That is not persuasive.
Indeed, "screaming" may be the wrong metaphor wrt what you are
doing into the wind.
john
p.s. If I felt that there were a management conspiracy against
openness or fairness around here, I'd just quietly go somewhere
else and try to encourage others --including vendors and
implementers-- to follow. The IETF is really not that
important; the development work, products, and the Internet are.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf