On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:08:08PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's
glitch
shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.
Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every
contingency.
Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles
and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might
ever occur.
I don't think that is inconsistent with the need for precision. It's
ambiguity that leads to problems - for example, ambiguity about who
resolves problems during the formation of NomCom.
methinks there is a bit of confusion here.
brian seems to be arguing for a (nearly) completely objective
state ... (which, imho, brings nearly byzantine buraucracy
as a "feature")
and dave is making the argument that subjective state is a viable
alternative.
and one can be precise in either state.
to my memory, one could segment the IETF at about the century mark
along these lines:
20th century :: subjective/precise
21st century :: objective/ambigious
and the second state (21st century) is ambigious precisely because
there is not enough bureaucracy to codify every contingency.
if this is a rational characterisation, i know which state i'd rather
work in.
--bill
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf