Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was: Re:Doingthe Right Things?)

[Dave Crocker]

Keith,

>> The Kobe change to IETF organization was actually quite small.
>> Strategic. Essential. 
KM> and it's caused a lot of harm.

the problem with criticizing that original design is the tendency to
miss the context of the situation and the range of choices that were
available.

As is true with so many things that are problematic in the very long
term, it is often not the original decision that is the problem, but the
failure to evaluate and modify it over time.



BEC> I think there was something else. The IETF also put in place mechanisms
BEC> for renewal and accountability of the decision-taking group. And that,
BEC> if I'm not mistaken, was to reduce the incidence of hubris.

The original draft of my posting had text to distinguish the
standardization-authority change from the AD selection change.

The latter has nothing to do with "the style in which we make
decisions", which was the focus of Harald's comment that I was
responding to.



BEC> In other words, there was no attempt to solve a scaling problem.

yup.  i entirely agree.

however, that does not mean the original decision was bad, but that we
have not been improving our system design over time.

but scaling is not the *only* problem that is of concern to our
community.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>