- Original Message -
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Noel Chiappa j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:38 PM
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a
Randy Bush wrote:
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
i'm surprised that we
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
I have two issues with your observation.
First, while I agree we've been deficient in architecture, from
On Oct 10, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think we need to stop behaving as if the IETF is a
small group of people who know each other well. Consensus
decision-making does not scale well with the number of
participants, and if we're going to require
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to represent
the organizations of which they are chairs.
As a practical matter any organization that tries to do things with other
organizations needs to have some party that can act on its behalf. That is
why Ambassadors are necessary.
The current constitution of the IETF means that the chairs of the IAB and
the IETF have very limited authority to
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com
I have argued for junking the DARPA constitution for years. It was
designed to keep power in the hands of the few while the rest of the
organization didn't worry their pretty heads about it.
Factually incorrect in a number of ways.
First off, we like to be in a situation where past IETF discussion, consensus,
RFCs, and current work program guide what the leaders say. I think this was
largely the case with the Montevideo statement as well. Of course these are
judgment calls. Please send us feedback - I for instance talk in
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and where
possible, indicate
that consensus has been reached (or not).when leaders speak out on behalf
of organization
-particularly- this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the consensus of
the group at large,
they have
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
That is not good for the IETF and it reflects that we are not ready for
the dynamics of the Internet that we created.
.as
On 10/10/13 3:49 PM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate
On 10October2013Thursday, at 1:30, SM wrote:
At 12:27 09-10-2013, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Now, there is indeed a possible issue, and that is that these chairs
were attending a chief officer-type meeting: there were CEOs and so
on, and (presumably by analogy) the chairs got invited to
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this organization and they are _NOT_ relaying the
Hello,
On 10/10/13 4:30 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 10/10/13 9:49 AM, manning bill wrote:
the leaders are there to inform and moderate the discussion and
where possible, indicate that consensus has been reached (or not).
when leaders speak out on behalf of organization -particularly-
this
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job was
On 10/10/13 10:52 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's
model of his job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense
you seem to be
From: Melinda Shore melinda.sh...@gmail.com
The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of good stuff) back in,
e.g. the Phill Gross era, when I am pretty sure Phill's model of his
job was indeed as a 'facilitator', not a 'leader' in the sense you
seem to be thinking
On 11/10/2013 07:52, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in, e.g. the Phill Gross era,
To have a leader there must be followers. Ergo there are no IETF leader
statements.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Because we've got more than 120 working groups, thousands of
participants, and the internet is now part of the world's
communications infrastructure. I don't like hierarchy but
I don't know how to scale up the organization without it.
There are
On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:52 PM, j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
Then we have a big problem as organization, we are then leaderless.
I'm not sure this is true. The IETF worked quite well (and produced a lot of
good stuff) back in,
Just to clarify, I am no saying that today we are leaderless. In fact I
think we have a very good leadership.
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
Regards,
as
On 10/10/13 4:52 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
What I am saying is that if we that we want our leaders to only
moderate discussion we are in a big problem.
we are in a big problem, and this is one major part. two decades of
lack of coherent architectural oversight is another symptom of this.
i'm surprised that we are not overwhelmed with
Dear colleagues,
Once again, I'm speaking only for myself. I think there is an
important matter here for the IETF community to think about,
particularly as the Nomcom is _right now_ seeking nominees for open
positions. I want to be very careful to emphasise that I do not
intend to specify a
On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
What I am not sure about is whether people are willing to accept the
chairs acting in that sort of leader of organization role. If we do
accept it, then I think as a consequence some communications will
happen without consultation. For a CEO is
There should be known limits for chairs, leaders, only if the procedures
have mentioned no limits of representation. Trust is there but still there
is also levels and limits for trust and representation.
AB
On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 10/10/2013 08:27, Andrew
* Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions,
to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance,
or we will have no voice on those occasions.
We should think before we speak, and discursive debate is our collective
thought
Björn,
On 10/10/2013 10:21, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Either we trust our current and future chairs, on certain occasions,
to speak in our name without there being a discursive debate in advance,
or we will have no voice on those occasions.
We should think before
Discursive debate in advance is for establishing principles, and
establishing the level of trust invested in someone. Then you let them go
to do the job you chose them for. If an issue is of such weight that it
requires a lot of discussion, and you chose the right people, they will
know that
28 matches
Mail list logo
