Dave,
We have a long history of looking at the same data and analysis
and reaching different conclusions and of looking at different
data and analysis and reaching similar conclusions. Since we
have both been critical of aspects of this process, let me agree
with you about part of it but
Hi Dave,
I am trying to imagine any sort of serious protocol development
process that used that sort of logic and then had acceptance
and/or success.
Here-in lies the rub. If you try to use our rules of protocol
development to develop an organization we'll never get there. And you
and I
Eliot,
I am trying to imagine any sort of serious protocol
development process that used that sort of logic and then
had acceptance and/or success.
Here-in lies the rub. If you try to use our rules of
protocol development to develop an organization we'll never
get there. And you
John,
--On søndag, oktober 03, 2004 15:11:24 -0400 John C Klensin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
IAB and IESG continue to appoint secret (i.e., not
announced and minuted) committees to hold secret (i.e.,
not announced in advance to the community) meetings,
Dear John,
your last two mails do not point out all the problems (I am quite
interested in Dave's remark on IANA), but they give a good account of a
pure technical (management) problem. Internet is defined as the adherence
of its users to the documents resulting from the Internet standard
And If the [Ll]eadership of this organization screws up badly
enough, the Internet Community *WILL* route around the damage. It's
happened before. That's how W3C came to be.
Eliot
Erk!
I haven't been involved with W3C since 2000, but I WAS involved in W3C
during the late 1990s. It's worth
Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Erk!
I haven't been involved with W3C since 2000, but I WAS involved in W3C
during the late 1990s. It's worth pointing out that the alternate
routing mechanism _did_ include a king - at that time, Tim was doing
final endorsement for all recommendations, and it looks like
I have been trying to be mostly in listening mode, but I'd like to
provide my personal perspective on the process issues.
1/ Openness of process
I don't mind having my mistakes pointed out, but I rather fear
I'm being accused of not having lived up to a promise I didn't
make. Here's what I
--On Monday, 04 October, 2004 18:33 +0200 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, Spencer. We *had* a king for a VERY long time, and
it was Jon Postel as RFC Editor and IANA. And somehow we
survived. While Jon was around somehow a vast plethora of
standards got vetted, not the
John,
In this context, my precise objection to what is going on now
rests on a comparison with that style of leadership. Jon's
style involved persuasion, logic, facts, and trying to
understand the point of view of those with whom he disagreed.
Like you, I disagreed with some of his
However, I don't see delay
at this point in time assisting our cause. In fact, the
general membership of the IETF (whatever that means) has very
few lawyers, and probably very few MBAs. One would have to
wait a LONG time for community consensus.
1. Nothing about the reorganization
Eliot,
I'm obviously not being successful at explaining what I'm
concerned about it and my getting this deeply drawn into this
whole discussion violates a promise I made to myself some time
ago, which was to concentrate my IETF time on only those things
in which I had a strong technical interest
John,
I agree with you that there is reason to be concerned about a group of
technical people who are not lawyers having to make decisions about the
organization. However, I don't see delay at this point in time
assisting our cause. In fact, the general membership of the IETF
(whatever that
--On Friday, 01 October, 2004 20:09 +0200 Eliot Lear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kai Henningsen wrote:
Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly
not the question his poll asked - there was no neither
option.
Nor need there be. If the leadership is down to these two
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) wrote on 29.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sigh, Dave.
It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet
that would equate No, I do not wish to state an opinion with
I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category
that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian E Carpenter) wrote on 30.09.04 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A poll that asks for choice between X, Y and Neither seems like
the only rational way forward in that situation.
Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly not the
question his poll asked - there
Kai Henningsen wrote:
Only Harald disagrees with that, because that is certainly not the
question his poll asked - there was no neither option.
Nor need there be. If the leadership is down to these two choices and
one of them is going to be The Onetm, then you might as well run with
those
It is impressive that you confuse the difference between
affirmatively embracing an absent alternative with a passive
refusal to embrace the alternatives presented.
Maybe I'm stupid but wasn't there a 'Yes I have an opinion
which I will express later' and a comment textfield? Why not
rant
I'm a bit fed up with the discussion under this subject field.
The issues that we are trying to solve have been on the table
since the draft that became RFC 3716 was published in late 2003,
and a range of solutions are sketched in
draft-malamud-consultant-report-01.txt,
and we've talked about
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:00:11 +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
Maybe I'm stupid but wasn't there a 'Yes I have an opinion
which I will express later' and a comment textfield?
That's not what it says.
And trying to use a comment field, to compensate for a
fundamentally biased multiple-choice form
And trying to use a comment field, to compensate for a
fundamentally biased multiple-choice form never works. What
counts is the counting. The numbers.
In which case you should have written a draft like Brian said.
I am sure that any reasonable alternatives would have been part
of the poll had
Sigh, Dave.
It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet
that would equate No, I do not wish to state an opinion with
I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category
that covers my opinion.
What about English?
If I ask you do you prefer A or B, and you say I don't
It is very unlikely that there is any language on this
planet that would equate No, I do not wish to state an
opinion with I wish to state an opinion but you have no
provided a category that covers my opinion.
What about English?
If I ask you do you prefer A or B, and you say I
--On 27. september 2004 15:39 -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
wrote:
The poll about restructuring options:
http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/
is open until Wednesday.
The poll asks whether one has an
--On Tuesday, 28 September, 2004 09:07 +0200 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 27. september 2004 15:39 -0700 Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
wrote:
The poll about restructuring options:
John,
what I expected when I caused this poll to be created was that there would
be a significant number of people choosing No, I do not wish to state an
opinion. For multiple reasons - I trust the leadership to decide better
than I can was one that people talking to me gave me, in addition to
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
John,
what I expected when I caused this poll to be created was that there
would be a significant number of people choosing No, I do not wish to
state an opinion. For multiple reasons - I trust the leadership to
decide better than I can was one that people
Not to pick on Eliot in particular... This message is really
addressed to everyone who has said I trust the leadership to decide:
At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote:
Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I
can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a
Hi Margaret,
My reading of the situation is that the differences between scenarios 0
M revolve around contract and corporate law, potentially in multiple
jurisdictions. I'm not a subject matter expert in this area. If you're
asking that I run this by lawyers, I'd reluctantly do so. But I
At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote:
Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I
can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a day job that
has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IETF governance. I'd
like to have the time to go over all this fun stuff,
At 2:30 PM +0200 9/28/04, Eliot Lear wrote:
Just to be clear, I trust the leadership to decide better than I
can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have a day job that
has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with IETF governance. I'd
like to have the time to go over all this fun
% Just a reminder:
%
% The poll about restructuring options:
%
% http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/
%
% is open until Wednesday.
%
% The poll does contain questions that we want EVERYONE to answer, whether
% they have a specific opinion or not. So everyone who reads the
Hi,
While I agree that the poll should have provided more options, such as:
- neither 0 nor c
- indifferent
- need more info/discussion
The fact that it does include a box for comments mitigates the absence
somewhat. Especially if in reporting the results, the comments are
included as
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:30:50 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
wrote:
The poll about restructuring options:
http://tools.ietf.org/poll/admin_scenario_alternatives/
is open until Wednesday.
The poll asks whether one has an opinion and, if one has an
opinion, whether if favors either of two
34 matches
Mail list logo
