On 7/7/2010 6:42 AM, Eric Rosen wrote:
I don't think folks have appreciated how truly insidious Russ' document is.
First, he proposes to eliminate a set of processes that are frequently used
to portray the IETF in a negative light:
Eric,
Thanks for clarifying why this is now such an urgent matter and that serious
deliberation about it is such a wasteful effort.
Indeed, if we fix these unpleasant bits of perception, I'm sure that there will
be nothing else available to those wishing to portray the IETF in a negative
light. Letting such folk dictate changes to our core constructs is, after all,
essential. Perception is everything so you are correct that we need not
consider the deeper questions of costs or benefits.
This blatant attempt to improve the public image of the IETF is an obvious
conflict of interest for the IETF chair or any other IESG member!
There is a difference between sarcasm and silly. The former would have required
that you attend at least a little bit to the actual meaning of conflict of
interest.
From the larger perspective, I suppose you are correct that it is wasteful to
worry about a deliberative process, conducted in a serious manner. Raising
questions about real efficacy and real costs is just too much hassle. Let's go
with emotion and instinct. It's so much more reliable.
But then comes the most insidious proposal of all: the elimination of the
prohibition against "downward references".
Right. Personally, I think it's fine to include a normative reference to
something jotted down on a napkin. So I don't understand the fuss about citing
Internet-Drafts.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf