Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change

> > > > > "Ted" == Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
    Ted> want to trust individuals as much as we used to.  That lack of
    Ted> trust isn't directed at the current IESG, IAOC, or IAB, but at
    Ted> future incumbents.  We have come to the idea that allowing a
    Ted> current set of office-holders to make ad hoc decisions implies
    Ted> that all later incumbents will share that ability.  Since we
    Ted> don't know those later incumbents (how could we?), we don't
    Ted> trust them; since we don't trust them, we don't want to cede to
    Ted> them a power that might later get abused.  So we attempt to use
    Ted> structure and process to restrict those unknown future
    Ted> incumbents.  

ted, I'm a strong proponent of process over common sense (within limits)
but don't believe the above captures my rationale at all.

I am as worried about the current officers as much as any future
officers.

Especially when people have a lot of power, It's difficult to come
forward and say that you think they've abused that power or made a
decision that negatively impacts fairness.

Also, I believe people--even very good people--are bad at making
decisions that impact fairness, especially when they care significantly
about the outcome of those decisions.

So, for myself, as the importance of the work an organization does, the
maximum I am willing to trust anyone with regard to process issues
decreases significantly.
This is not a negative statement about any office holders, past, current
or future.
This is simply a belief that it is important to use more process as the
importance of things affected by the process increase.

I believe that the IETF's impact has increased and so I believe that the
IETF needs more process than it used to.

--Sam