Is this really where we want to go? (was: Re: Selecting leadership, take 2)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On l=F8rdag, desember 07, 2002 07:47:33 -0500 John C Klensin=20
<john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Friday, 06 December, 2002 22:06 -0800 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [ just to highlight your last paragraph ]
>>
>> maybe shortness of meetings actually is a problem.\
>
> That is why I tried to make the specific example extreme enough to be
> silly.  The topic deserves, IMO, discussion.  And I find it interesting,
> and useful, that you did exactly what I was advocating (and that Ted
> followed up on in more detail and more eloquently than my original
> statement): to oversimplify, you stated the possible problem ("shortness
> of meetings"), explained the presumed bad effects ("slow convergence and
> poor quality")

actually I would claim the opposite nomenclature here - that the "slow=20
convergence and poor quality" is the problem, and "shortness of meetings"=20
is one possible cause (other possible causes being lack of ability to force =

convergence on mailing lists, entrenched company positions, lack of=20
committment of resources from the people who need to work on the problem,=20
lack of early architectural input...)

but this is, perhaps, syntax, not semantics.

>, identified a remedy other than the four-week IETFs of my
> strawman (interim meetings), and identified a possible downside
> ("standards professionals" and "loss of wide perspective").  So, I think,
> we should now be able to have all of those discussions (and I am pleased
> that two have already started), including, explicitly, the "email versus
> meeting time" tradeoff that Jari raised.
>
> That, it seems to me, is how we make progress.  And, while the
> implications are broad, the   The alternative of trying to build a
> comprehensive problem model feels, instead, like a way of going around in
> circles.

possibly my problem is that I don't feel that we've made it around the=20
circle even once yet....