I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and
having
sub-ADs report to them.
It's well known that when dealing with a scalability issue, the way
to address the issue is to install hierarchy. [Have you
On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:18 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 20:46, Tony Li wrote:
I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and
having
sub-ADs report to them.
It's well known that when dealing with
On 2007-06-27 20:46, Tony Li wrote:
I don't see increasing the areas; I see splitting them down as a
possible way. Leaving an AD at the top level with less work, and having
sub-ADs report to them.
It's well known that when dealing with a scalability issue, the way to
address the issue is
On 2007-06-27 17:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
(but that is getting
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 17:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass
DHCP is also a frequently-used building block (some would say
attractive nuisance). Stig, Jari and I are trying to identify drafts
from outside the dhc WG that extend DHCP or use DHCP in novel ways,
so we can provide guidance to the authors of those drafts as early as
possible. Jari and
Joe,
On 2007-06-24 18:19, Joe Touch wrote:
Ted Hardie wrote:
...
That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a meritocracy; it's not.
I believe there remains a disconnect between what people think the I*
roles are (primarily service, e.g., IMO),
That may be your opinion. Mine is
We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
It's not clearly even a way forward. the more ADs there are, the harder
it is to coordinate between the ADs and the areas.
IETF structure doesn't
On 2007-06-27 15:52, Joe Touch wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
It's not clearly even a way forward. the more ADs there are, the harder
it is to coordinate
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-27 15:52, Joe Touch wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
It's not clearly even a way forward. the more ADs there are,
We could have more ADs and split and/or layer the work to reduce the
per-person load. That may not be the only - or even best - way forward,
It's not clearly even a way forward. the more ADs there are, the harder
it is to coordinate between the ADs and the areas.
Yes,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
One thing that would make a significant difference would be if WGs
really took responsibility for their own quality control. Even at the
trivial level, the IESG still gets drafts that don't pass ID-nits
(but that is getting better, thanks to PROTO shepherding). But maybe
So, I am curious. Have people looked at
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/discuss-criteria.html (which I BELIEVE is
the current form of the DISCUSS Criteria document - this really needs to be
an ION, but that's another story)?
Does this look like the kind of guidance Randall is talking about?
At 7:00 PM -0400 6/22/07, John C Klensin wrote:
I believe that we should be selecting IESG and IAB members who
can and will exhibit very high levels of technical maturity and
breath, and consistent good judgment. I believe that being
sufficiently mature and self-aware to avoid either
Ted Hardie wrote:
...
That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a meritocracy; it's not.
I believe there remains a disconnect between what people think the I*
roles are (primarily service, e.g., IMO), and what those in those roles
have sometimes interpreted it as (oversight based on
--On Sunday, 17 June, 2007 22:43 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes
people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks
and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a
willingness to speak up
On 2007-06-15 18:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents,
contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says
there is a problem here, but 5 WG members stand up and say I
disagree and don't see a
I think this actually highlights where I am concerned.
At 01:43 AM 6/18/2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
In most cases, I am simply seeking more transparency and determinism
in our operation.
I agree that transparency is a good think. (There are a few cases
where that must be sacrificed,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-06-15 18:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents,
contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says
there is a problem here, but 5 WG members stand up and say I
On Jun 12, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the
contributors is just wrong. They are judges of consensus when
appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable
I would be very interested in
Thanks for your response Thomas.
Apologies if I had inadvertently given the impression of mistrust in the
current leadership, I* and WG chairs. I have very good working
relationships with most if not all of the I* folks I interact with.
Sure, there have been differences of opinions, but with
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Folks,
If you want the history of this thread, please see the SAAG mailing
list archive.
Thomas,
Your ideas that the IETF is a meritocracy and that I* opinions are
afforded special status are to say the least worry me. How do those,
I wonder, fit with what's
At 8:58 AM +0200 6/15/07, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
But I believe that in neither that page nor in RFC 3935 did we ever commit the
fallacy of saying one man, one vote.
How the weight one gives to opinions is distributed varies, I believe - both
from case to case and from person to person - but
Thomas Narten wrote:
If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents,
contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says
there is a problem here, but 5 WG members stand up and say I
disagree and don't see a problem, do you really expect the security
Your ideas that the IETF is a meritocracy and that I* opinions are
afforded special status are to say the least worry me.
If you start from a postion that one cannot trust the I*, or WG
chairs, etc. (as a number of your recent postings seem to do), then
yes, one can't help to be troubled.
Lakshminath,
Just commenting from my own experience with views
about the BOF process...
I don't think the fact that someone is in the I* means
their opinions necessarily carries more weight than
other opinions.
This does not imply that all opinions carry the same
weight. Informed, well
Laksminath,
Let me stop being cynical and say that it would be worthwhile to iron
out the review criteria as clearly as possible.
I would support a document giving clearer guidelines
for this. Draft-narten-successful-bof already
outlines some of the things that a BOF proposal
should satisfy.
Fit might be the right criteria if the objective here is to have a nice jolly
time.
We have a rather serious responsibility here. Many of the best people in the
field are not exactly known for being easy to get along with.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Hardie [mailto:[EMAIL
--On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 14:22 -0700 Ted Hardie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
That does not mean the IETF leadership is itself a
meritocracy; it's not. The IESG and IAB are picked by NomComs
for a variety of skills and fit is a critical one. Someone
who can fit into the team the NomCom
Folks,
If you want the history of this thread, please see the SAAG mailing list
archive.
Thomas,
Your ideas that the IETF is a meritocracy and that I* opinions are
afforded special status are to say the least worry me. How do those, I
wonder, fit with what's written in the IETF mission
On 6/12/07 3:17 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are judges of consensus when
appropriate and the consensus better be independently verifiable. In
the end, the entire process works with the IETF Community's consensus
where the IAB and the IESG get to prioritize the work.
Lakshminath == Lakshminath Dondeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lakshminath Folks, If you want the history of this thread, please
Lakshminath see the SAAG mailing list archive.
Lakshminath Thomas,
To be clear I'm not sure that I* opinions have been given special
treatment in this
Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen
leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility
to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a
reasonable likelyhood of success, etc. And please remember, the IETF
is a meritocracy. So
I may well be misreading Lakshminath below.
But the note as written seems to say that ADs are only supposed to
judge consensus.
That misses important parts of the point.
They are also selected for technical judgement, and expected to use
that judgement.
So, for example, an AD is NOT required
We trust the IESG not only to judge consensus but also to provide
technical mentoring and leadership. We trust the IAB not only to
arbitrate in case of disagreement about consensus but also to
provide architectural insight and leadership.
Yes, that gives them a special status. It's called
I understand the technical judgment argument, but I see a lot of
practical issues with it. First, an AD (or an IAB member) may not be an
expert in all the topics under review; in fact it is probably unfair to
assume that they are. Some of them seek help from the community (hear
both sides of
My education did not include Latin, but Wikipedia says there are several
kinds of Firsts among equals. One example is a 'president' and
another is a 'chair of an organization.' Surely the first is not inline
with our famous saying
We do not believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
We
37 matches
Mail list logo
