ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A private club

2014-02-26 07:59:59


--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:29 -0800 S Moonesamy
<sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hello,

I received a private comment which contained some some advice
about IETF process in response to the message at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86321.htm
l  That advice contradicts the advice provided by participants
who are also Area Directors.

Subramanian,

Without details, the above is indistinguishable from innuendo.
That is not helpful in informing the rest of us about anything
other than that there are differences in opinion and perspective
in the community (I trust that doesn't surprise anyone).  I
recommend (in public because this context seems to require it)
that you go back to the person who made that comment, note the
contradiction, and ask for permission to bring the IESG (or
relevant ADs) into the conversation.  I hope we can look forward
to a report on your conclusions after the discussions that
should result.

In my opinion such occurrences can cause confusion for the
average participant as it is difficult to know whom to
believe.  

But I think that leaves only two choices:

(1) Someone who receives apparently-contradictory advice draws
all parties involved into a conversation and tries to get the
issues straightened out and the confusion eliminated.  That is
particularly important because I've often found that some
apparent contradictions are merely people saying what is
ultimately the same thing from widely different perspectives and
in different terms.

(2) We establish a complete canon of procedural rules and
definitions, insist that anyone participating in the IETF
formally subscribe to it, and kick anyone who deviates off all
the mailing lists.

I can't begin to list the reasons why the second would be a bad
idea but, as long as we come from different backgrounds,
cultures, and perspectives on the IETF, differences such as the
one you describe are inevitable and the only important questions
are whether we can put the effort and good faith into sorting
them out (even if the result is in agreeing to disagree) or
whether we just complain.

It can be even more difficult for people who reside
in some parts of the world due to cultural differences.

Sure.  There is no question that we've got a lot of cultural
differences and resulting potential disconnects here, even among
"native" speakers of English and/or North American and Western
European residents.    We should be working on them and it is
good that attempts in that direction are moving forward.  But
there are some of those cultural issues here that are probably
not going to change and probably shouldn't, even if changes
would widen nominal participation.  As two examples among many,
those who are unwilling to speak up about their views are going
to be at a disadvantage, at least until we replace rough
consensus with secret ballots at every decision point.  Second,
if we could devise a vocabulary and interaction style that would
be politically correct in every culture of the world, it would
be a foreign language and culture to all, or almost all, of us
and, if only for that reason, might not contribute to
efficiency.  The same comment would apply to our adopting the
formalized language of international diplomacy as often used in
some other SDOs.

I do worry that industry consolidation and related factors are
resulting in an increasing number of WGs with active
participation only from people associated with a small number of
companies.  That not only looks bad but is a threat to making of
industry standards even when everyone involved is acting in good
faith.   But I don't know any fixes other that reversing those
industry trends or giving up.  The first doesn't seem to be
within our power and I assume there is consensus that the second
isn't desirable.

best,
   john


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