ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Purpose of IESG Review

2013-04-13 04:17:29
AB

Have you considered that the key thing to remember in the
IETF is that:

"Foo is broken because of (carefully reasoned) Bar" always trumps
"Foo is OK because of who I am" ... and of course vise versa.

Thus in the IETF influence is a function of the ability to
carefully construct a well reasoned technical argument rather
than organizational position.

Of course you have to accept that no matter how carefully
reasoned your case for Bar is, your reasoning may be flawed,
and if that is the case you will normally be told so, sometimes
fairly bluntly, and that the NULL argument will likely be ignored
as noise.

- Stewart


On 12/04/2013 20:24, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue without an I-D written is the staff talking/working. If you write an I-D and to update the procedure related to the subject, you should consider many issues and I think will need many years of discussions, but then better effort result. IMHO, writing an I-D and getting back up by community discussion (with rough consensus) is in the top level and is the owner talking. I hope that when I review and comment on an I-D, it should be considered as one owner is talking, but seems like editors think they are the only owners. When IESG comment on the I-D it is managers/excutives talking. All parts are important to the best of output.
AB

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>