On 2010-06-26 02:49, Russ Housley wrote:
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history,
but we need to act toward improving the future.
The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat.
The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal
required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did
not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had
consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals
could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was
taken. I do not know the reasons.
I was General AD at the time. There was certainly no meeting of the minds
between NEWTRK's rough consensus for the ISD proposal and the IESG's
understanding of what ISDs would mean in practice. Also there was no
sign of consensus in NEWTRK for moving to a 1-step or 2-step standards
process as a first step, rather than ISDs as the first step. So basically
we got collectively stuck. I tried setting up a special design team
to unstick us and that didn't work either.
Which is why, basically, I support the latest 2-step proposal, as a way
to unstick this discussion and move in the direction of simplicity.
Brian
Russ
On 6/24/2010 6:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever
since nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead.
And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any
statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is
unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private.
If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was.
Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as
top down.
If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up
then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared
to state their reasons.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com
<mailto:housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com>> wrote:
I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many
things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the
whole bundle down.
Russ
On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even
> knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in
private
> as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should
> have a say. So much for bottom up organization.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf