Stewart> The -03 text is a significant improvement, but I still fear the
Stewart> impact of single issue technical politics on the output of our
Stewart> document stream.
Let's face it, the draft is nothing but a political manifesto, and the IETF
has no business even considering it. It is also clear from this discussion
that there is no consensus, even rough consensus, in favor.
Note the tone taken by proponents of the draft. It has been suggested that
critics are at best wasting everyone's time, and at worst unethical. When
it is pointed out that one cannot determine from the draft what the actual
impact on IETF process is, the proponents yell "there's no time to consider
the details, Rome is burning, we can't afford the time to listen to people
who disagree with us". The claim that we have to act immediately, even
though we don't know what we need to do, is particularly ridiculous. This
is all typical political discourse: ratchet up the volume of the sound
bites, claim the support of a "silent majority", and yell that the
dissenters are bad people who shouldn't be listened to. This should not be
considered to be an acceptable mode of discourse in the IETF.
StephenF> But Ted also pointed out that there is already plenty of
StephenF> ammunition for an overly zealous AD to use to have that bad
StephenF> effect. And you and others are I think also saying that that did
StephenF> happen in the past.
Routinely. Some past ADs are absolutely notorious in this regard, some from
an excess of zeal, and some from a strong conviction that they just know
what is best for everyone else.
StephenF> If so, then this BCP will have no impact in that respect - what is
StephenF> already possible will continue to be possible regardless of what
StephenF> happens with this draft.
Well, here's a particularly egregious example of poor reasoning: "since it
is already possible for the Security ADs to abuse their power, giving them
more tools and more excuses for doing so will have no effect." An obvious
non-sequitur, but a good sound bite.
It is true that the ADs already have plenty of opportunities to replace WG
consensus with their personal prejudices. Let's not give them any more.
This draft isn't what makes abuses possible, it just makes them a lot more
likely.