No, the IETF needs to
demonstrate that it is CAPABLE of change.
The Internet has changed and will continue
to change. If the IETF wants to remain relevant to the future of the Internet it
must change as well. Note that 'remaining relevant' is not exactly a stretch
goal
How familiar the bureaucrat's definition of
priorities: 'needed for the good of the institution'. Does this mean that you
think that the IETF only exists to serve its own interests?
There are a billion users out there who
expect much more of this institution than they receive. We have a mission here
that they expect us to realize: an Internet that is open, safe and accessible to
everyone.
From: Ted Faber
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 23/11/2005 10:22 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Dave Aronson (re IETF); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASCII art
Sent: Wed 23/11/2005 10:22 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Dave Aronson (re IETF); ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASCII art
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:34:31AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
wrote:
> The real reason to change the RFC format is that the IETF needs
to make
> a visible sign that it is capable of institutional
change.
Boy, I'm hoping that was a typo or rhetorical or something.
Because as
written it's pretty poorly reasoned. I'd prefer to make
institutional
changes only when they're needed for the good of the
institution, not to
prove that there's working process
machinery.
--
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber
PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected
attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
