At 02:55 12/09/2006, Carl Malamud wrote:
> IMHO, fighting the messenger is not the proper solution to the
> problem.
The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying. That is totally
inappropriate behavior.
I understand. But this is nothing compared with what I received to
support me and I could have used. To trigger a PR-action is no good.
IMHO accusing Brian in the open is better than the mere existance of
the thread which is actually based on worse, no one plainly telling
but actually considering at least theoretically many things now or in
the future. Creating doubt on the whole organisation.
What is necessary, now the doubt is here and Brian has good support,
is to find a way out. As an external user interested in the impact of
the IETF deliverables - as a technology maintenance center - I
observe that most of the tensions are between most who want to
protect existing recipes and build on top of what is deployed, and
those who want the best solutions now, even in rebuilding from
scratch what is wrong or outdated.
I think both attitudes necessary and only denotes the IETF maturity.
So, a solution could be to give an efficient home to the second and
growing part. Why would the IETF only maintain what is/was developped
outside or before, and would not have an innovative development and
testing branch? On the consolidation side rough consensus, affinity
group, and Nomcom system seem to be accepted. On an Internet
Development side may be more charismatic pushers, testing, and a
welcome capacity for projects would be needed. This would call for an
appropriate organisation to support them. With network architecture
sourceforge testing? With updated documentation? With proposed proven
source code? With user cooperation?
Time for investigating an IDTF? I do not know.
If some are interested to discuss it
http://mail.idtf.org/mailman/listinfo/draft_idtf.org
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf