Selecting leadership, take 2

[Marshall Rose]

dave - as much as i dislike contracting folks via email, i feel
compelled to take issue with something.

i think that the two of us share a concern that the plan-of-action that
harold has outlined has some significant drawbacks, not the least of
which is the timeframe. specifically, in the best case scenario, we don't
get rough concensus on "what the problem is" until roughly a year after
the yokohama foodfight... the lack of a sense of urgency is troubling.

on the other hand, the authors of the PACT I-D spent a considerable
amount of time analyzing several issues immediately after yokohama.
over the course of these discussion, we spoke with a lot of folks who
had their own particular view on things, and certainly this third-party
interaction shaped a fair amount of what went into the current I-D.

what i am suggesting is that it may take other folks a while to perform
the same kind of thoughtful analysis. as such, i think you're going to
get the wrong kind of pushback when you try to force the folks on this
mailing list to immediately narrow their focus to the I-D.

let me give you an example. two weeks ago, john klensin posted a
well-reasoned, thoughtful message in which he argued rather strenuously
against the I-D. geoff huston replied with a well-reasoned, thoughtful
rebuttal. john laments the lack of third-parties joining that thread,
and i agree with his lament.

in contrast, after you sent your message this morning, harold alvestrand
felt compelled to send a reply in the form of a terse set of bullet
points saying that he didn't think that predictability, accountability,
or timeliness were important in the ietf. the message was effectively
content-free, but it did convey a strong sense that Harold didn't think
it was appropriate to discuss the I-D at this time.

now, we've both known harold for many years, and we both know that he
really isn't saying that he doesn't care about the P, the A, or the T.
and we both know that he probably didn't mean to seem so dismissive.
obviously, a more nuanced reply would be one that points out that there
are many qualities we need to strive for, that sometimes these qualities
(or the ways to achieve them) are in conflict, and, accordingly, we have
to decide on the appropriate balance between them...

i know that you've waited a couple of weeks post-Atlanta before pushing
on people, and I appreciate the 14 days of relative calm. so please
don't take this as harshly as it reads...
    
/mtr