Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:25:00PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: Dean, Neither of us are lawyers, and even if we were, the application of the facts to law is not within the scope of the IETF mailing list. I'm also confused what point you are trying to make, but I suggest this particular thread be moved off of the IETF list, as it is not in scope of the list charter. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Thanks Dean - Which brings up the issues of liability and agency... Especially since there is no HOLD HARMLESS component of the Boilerplate. Todd - Original Message - From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: == § 16 Consideration The relation of principal and agent can be created although neither party receives consideration. § 16 Comment b. Gratuitous agents [...] However, during the existence of the relation a gratuitous agent has the same power to affect the principal.s relations with third persons as if he were paid, and his liabilities to and rights against third persons are the same. Further, he may be liable to the principal for failing to perform a promise on which the principal has relied (see § 378), or for harm caused by his careless performance (see § 379), and he is subject to all the paid agent.s duties of loyalty. See § 387, Comment c. Likewise a gratuitous agent has the same rights of indemnity against the principal as has the paid agent. See §§ 438-440. == IETF employees also receive benefits such as insurance, educational benefits, and sometimes travel benefits. This makes them paid employees == § 441 comment d. Non-gratuitous services not paid for in money. A person may act for compensation and not gratuitously although he receives no money or other thing for his services, as where one learning a trade or profession renders services in consideration of the opportunity offered him to gain skill. Likewise, the services of an agent whose compensation is contingent upon a condition which does not occur are not given gratuitously. In both cases the one acting has the duties and rights of an agent acting for compensation, either in an action of contract, if the principal commits a breach of contract, or, under some circumstances, in an action for restitution. == On Sun, 10 Sep 2006, Theodore Tso wrote: On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Ted not being a lawyer doesn't mean the IESG or the IETF gets to erect processes or methods which are contrary to the Public Policies of the United States since ISOC is a US Corporation, or likewise which violates any US Laws or Treaties that the US has with other Countries; Likewise this probably also pertains to state laws as well. Additional to US Law, it may also require compliance with the EU Data Integrity, Privacy, and Security Requirements since so many of our participants are from Europe and the Email-Hosting services for many of the IETF's WG's are here in the US. Not being a lawyer means a lawyer needs to do a legal analysis on the process and issue an opinion as to whether the contract's and their components make sense. Todd Glassey - Original Message - From: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:25:00PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: IETF volunteer staff are employees of the ISOC. That they aren't paid may make them gratuitous employees (see below). Gratuitous employees are still employees with just about the same obligations and duties of paid employees. I just happen to have the Restatement of the Law of Agency open: Dean, Neither of us are lawyers, and even if we were, the application of the facts to law is not within the scope of the IETF mailing list. I'm also confused what point you are trying to make, but I suggest this particular thread be moved off of the IETF list, as it is not in scope of the list charter. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent. As Phill knows, and in fact has in common with me, I grew up professionally while providing services to experimental physicists up to Nobel prize level. And one of the things you acquire in that environment is a thick skin for dealing with strong-willed and highly intelligent people who don't always think twice before they speak or write. (Read 'Nobel Dreams' by Gary Taub for a good introduction to this topic.) So, frankly, I am pretty much immune to personal insults, ad hominem arguments, and libels - receiving all of which seems to be part of the IETF Chair's job description. That being said, Phill is completely correct - we should look beyond the rudeness in various messages for the objective content or the fallacy. However, that doesn't mean we should tolerate rudeness, or any other unprofessional behaviour. I recommend everybody to re-read RFC 3005 and RFC 3184, and also to consider whether the 'delete' key isn't the best one to use. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
I tuned out of this argument a while back, I am not concerned about the outcome of this particular event, the problem is the setting of the wrong precedent. I think that Carl has fallen into an old rhetorical trap here. If the rules of a forum prohibit an accusation that you want to introduce the way to bypass it is to make a statement that is tantamount to the accusation but not the accusation. Then you wait for someone to allege that you have crossed the line, thus making the statement. So please, if you see a repeated implication don't take the trouble to clarify it. The terms of civil debate have loopholes for good reason. I am just reading a report of a government official (I won't say which country) who has very clearly and deliberately lied, making a claim of a trend in a series of statistics that have clearly been deliberately (and clumsily) manipulated. There is a repeated implication here that someone wants to become a martyr, why oblige? Incidentally the implication that someone has lied is not ad-hominem. I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about ad-hominem arguments since a common criticism of trust systems and moderation systems is that they are essentially based on ad-hominem reasoning. The term has to be used with precision and there is a side condition that is not normally recognized. It is possibly slander but not ad-hominem which is a logical fallacy of the form: A argues B, A is a bad person, therefore B is false. So an ad-hominem attack would be 'Todd Glassey believes that the NOMCON process needs reform, Todd Glassey is despicable, therefore there is no reason to change the NOMCON'. In the case of the government official the implication that they have lied is an inescapable conclusion drawn from undisputed facts. Nor is an argument of the form 'A has lied', 'A is a member of government B', therefore 'Government B is untrustworthy'. An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no fallacy. -Original Message- From: Carl Malamud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 7:57 PM To: Theodore Tso Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process Hi Ted - I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment. But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard. 1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has lied to the IETF. That is an ad hominen attack and goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. 2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process works, they should do what we did when the system was put in place: write a document and get consensus. The IETF is all about running code, and that includes business processes. An I-D is the first step. Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up policy on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of writing an I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. 3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge, and other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify as reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated purpose of this mailing list. I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to take more active steps to keep discussion on the general mailing list on track. At the very least, discussants should be actively enouraged to move their discourse to more specialized mailing lists. Regards, Carl On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: An ad-hominem argument is a fallacy if and only if the truth value of B is independent of the character of A. In cases where the truth value of B is in fact dependent on the character of A there is no fallacy. True. But I'm not sure I agree that this is what has happened here. Personally, I don't think that Todd is a despicable person, but I do find his tactics a bit tiresome. Like Carl, I resent the insinuation that the chair of the IETF has lied to his constituency. I have for a long time had a discussion with him regarding the use of mailing lists and the fact that they have intended topics. Like him, I have some experience talking with lawyers but am not a lawyer. I quickly tire of his bullying. Bottom line, I would welcome the sergeant-at-arms addressing the issue in the manner prescribed. That said, the nomcom process is imperfect. I have reason to know: I chaired the nomcom in 1993, was a liaison from the IAB to in 2002, and am a liaison from the ISOC Board to this year. We have tried to deal with the imperfections in it several times, and in the end wind up with something that mostly works but has imperfections because it depends on people, and people are imperfect. It depends on the quality of the people we put on it, and in fact I think we have consistently put on the nomcom people of quality who have sought, however imperfectly, to make the right things happen for the community. And I think many of them have felt a bit abused by the community later on. I wish that the community would treat its servants better; they certainly try to treat it better. Todd would like to see the membership of the IETF formally defined and used to support voting. That's a reasonable thing to do, if the community wants to go there. The big problem in it is that much of the community doesn't know the individuals in it other than those they have worked with, so voting is essentially a popularity contest. We have seen that on the ISOC Board, back when there was a direct vote for its membership, and we have seen it in other SDOs. The antics of one campaigning for a position can be amusing to watch, and the fact that people are forced to campaign leads people trying to do technical work to ask did s/he say that because they think it's pertinent, or because they are campaigning for a position?. I find the campaigning fairly destructive. I may be mistaken, and if so someone will no doubt correct me. I don't believe that we do the nomcom process because we don't want to vote. I think we do it because we don't want to deal with the processes of campaigning, and because we want better leadership than a popularity contest would give us. Since the nomcom does a fairly serious investigation of the people it proposes, I think it is more likely to give us the type and quality of people that our processes depend on. Whatever its imperfections, I think it is a better process than a voting process would be in the IETF context. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
- Original Message - From: Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG Why should I - this is a standards process not a Church or an organized religion. Faith is what you put into processes and things unknown and that IS NOT what the IETF's Standards Process is/are supposed to be. (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), No Ted - they are formally appointed staff members in formally defined roles with defined standing. The fact that they were given a vote also gave them a liability as well - I bet Jorge and the other lawyers ever told you that eh? As to them being compensated staff - they are exactly that. They are compensated for their standing by a tremendous value to their professional careers and they accept that value in lieu of formal compensation, so although they are not paid formally, they are exactly that - compensated staff. But Ted - you keep dancing around language to try and keep the IESG from being responsible - its what you folks do best as far as I can tell. but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. Who cares what the vast majority of people here think This list has 30 or 40 members of the IETF talking and that is it. If that constitutes a VAST MAJORITY of anything within the IETF... well I am betting the rest of the list gets the point. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So then you are saying that the right way to address the IEWSG is to kiss its *ss and that this is the way to get things done? So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Ted - you take an attack on the system as an attack against you personally or Brian and that documents the the issues herein and your own gross incompetence to stand in any role where you are makling decisions about others IP Initiatives. Bluntly Ted - this IETF needs a total overhaul and you and the the rest of the IESG who are desparately trying to protect their Jobs need to be shown the door IMHO. Sorry but its the histrory of your (the IESG's) gross screw-ups. A blanket history of approving process after process and implementing it without bothering to get any of the Sponsor's legal agreements. You crack me up... this is basic organizational dynamics 101 and any first year OR student could see the flaws here. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Hi Ted - I've tried to stay out of this, since there has been too much comment. But, I'd like to amplify your point and some others I've heard. 1. I'm offended by Todd's repeated implication that Brian has lied to the IETF. That is an ad hominen attack and goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. 2. If somebody wants to change the way the nomcom process works, they should do what we did when the system was put in place: write a document and get consensus. The IETF is all about running code, and that includes business processes. An I-D is the first step. Repeated attempts to bypass the process (e.g., by making up policy on the fly and posting it to the IETF list instead of writing an I-D) goes well beyond the stated purpose of this mailing list. 3. Repeated threats of legal actions, invocations of Jorge, and other tactics meant to bully participants do not qualify as reasoned discourse and do not contribute to the stated purpose of this mailing list. I would encourage our sergeant at arms and our leadership to take more active steps to keep discussion on the general mailing list on track. At the very least, discussants should be actively enouraged to move their discourse to more specialized mailing lists. Regards, Carl On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG (they aren't staff, by the way, they are volunteers), but at the same time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in good faith, and that no harm was done. You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So if you do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve your goals better than your current style of attacking people like Brian and other IESG members. Regards, - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process
Hi - From: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:44 AM Subject: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process ... The IETF's standards processes need to be redesigned so that they do not allow for Conflicts of Interest to occur. Period. ... When I see an internet draft spelling out such a process, I will read it with great interest. Until someone does the work of figuring out how to create such a process, however, I am quite happy to trust (or not) the various players, in accordance with their behaviour and my own experience. As others have said, making it impossible to misbehave does not make people good. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
