Hi Todd,
I agree on your concerns but disagree with few issues, read my
disagree reason below:
Todd> Most of the vetting happens between parties offlist and no capture .....
AB> any organisation may have this behavior, but what matters is as
long as you are participating to : monitoring input, questioning,
suggesting, convincing others, writing I-Ds for the IETF, and making
up your decisions.
Todd>The IETF process of today is based on a 'consensus' process from
a membership of zero. That in and of itself flies in the face of
reason and ethical clarity. If there were formal members who came
together in a framework that the IETF administered it would be OK but
the process today is too easily abused.
AB> it is greate that we are not memebrs, we are participants, because
we become equal to any other, if memebrship then we will have a memebr
for 10 years and a memeber for 5 years (not measuring efforts but
time), but with the IETF we are just participants, the value or
difference between us is only how much you participate and author I-Ds
or IETF RFCs. There MAY be abuse to the consensus process only if the
CHAIR does not consider the healthy discussion related. So we need
something to avoid this.
Todd> When the journey is completed the standard will automatically
issue... no IESG no IAB pain no extra administrative overhead for a
bunch of lifer type standards junkies... Just simple and clean access
to the standard process.
AB> standard process is greate as we have IESG and WG reviews, first
because the authors will have to discuss through many things with the
focused/expert IETF group, then secondly the IESG have a more general
review which includes many other affects of the I-D with other WGs in
IETF. Yes painful but healthy.
Best Regards
Abdussalam Baryun
++++++++++++++++
The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the
Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical
documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the
Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.