ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Public musing on the nature of IETF membership and employment status

2010-04-09 09:13:28
On 4/8/2010 10:22 PM, Dean Willis wrote:

On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

Hi Fred,

Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there were
one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and damage my
relationship with my new employer during the first days on the job?

Yep. If you did, most of the people I know around the IETF would never
trust you again. Instead, we'd expect you to convert your new employer
to your old way of thinking.

Either they're hiring because they think you're smart and they want your
input, or they're hiring you to shut you up.

Are you getting  a paycheck from your employer, or are you taking a
bribe? They aren't the same thing.

That's the point. The IETF has functionally become a covert arena where
corporate entities  expand technology to bolster their market dominance,
and since virtually all of us employed in the IT or
infrastructure/server world are tied to LAN protocols. As such the IETF
is functionally inextricably tied to our employers and their business,
meaning that we do in fact represent the interests of our employers when
we participate inside the IETF, even if our Employers are Academic in
nature.

Take CISCO, JUNIPER, QUALCOMM and many many others for instance. Could
any of these entities survive without the service that the IETF provided
and continues to provide to them?

I think the answer is pretty obvious and an Court who looked at the
technologies and their value in the business development of
infrastructure would see the "lies put forth" in the public statement by
IETF Management that the IETF only represents individuals.

In fact the IETF of today only represents entities with enough money to
send people to meetings and to pay for their staff's hours spent
interacting with the IETF and in vetting the IETF's designs meaning
genesis is occurring based on that effort.

This also opens the can of worms of litigation against the IETF and WG
members for their actions in either actively blocking or damaging
initiatives in place, since neither are "Open and Fair" meaning that the
IETF also is liable there IMHO.

Just my two cents...

Todd Glassey


-- 
Dean


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


Attachment: tglassey.vcf
Description: Vcard

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