Danger to the Net? (Re: My thoughts about the problems of the IETF)

John C Klensin john-ietf at jck.com
Mon Apr 21 13:29:48 CEST 2003

--On Monday, 21 April, 2003 08:20 -0700 Aaron Falk 
<falk at isi.edu> wrote:

> Dave-
> Sounds like a call for an ombudsman.

Hmm.  Sounded to me more like a call to

	(i) Review the role of IETF Chair and inquire whether it
	is desirable to give him or her a little more ability to
	push back on ADs who are getting out of hand (a logical
	extension of the way the appeal process is supposed to
	(ii) Review the notion of a "general area" to determine
	whether it creates unreasonably opportunities for
	essentially un-appealable abuse _by_ the IETF Chair.

I'm sorry, but, in the IETF context, "ombudsman" seems, to me, 
to be very likely to create a "whiner in chief" role if there is 
no real power associated with the position.  And, if there is 
such power, we create a new "king" position, with high 
likelihood that no one would want such a position unless he or 
she wanted a king-like role.

Now, if this is a variant on "appeals are too heavyweight to 
deal with stuff like this", then we should, IMO, be discussing 
that problem and ways to solve it.  For example, we could 
consider approaches in which, if an appeal got to the IETF 
Chair, he or she immediately appointed a (very?) small review 
committee to advise on the reasonableness of the appealed claim 
and to do so in a very short period of time.  If the potential 
nonsense appeal, or one for which there was obviously no 
community support, could be disposed of quickly and efficiently, 
the appeals process might be seen as more appropriate for 
seemingly-minor or marginal situations.


> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Harald,
>> HTA> at the risk of sounding a call for flamage....
>> ...
>> HTA> I am beginning to be as tired of hearing about unnamed
>> ADs wielding unnamed HTA> threats to unnamed document authors
>> over unnamed technical issues for HTA> unnamed political
>> reasons as you must be of feeling the pushback.
>> And therein lies a major problem in the IETF right now.
>> There is no "risk" of flamage.  It is a certainty.
>> Open frank discussion of particulars about an AD is never
>> productive in the IETF.
>> So you are probably not alone in being tired of this mode of
>> communication.
>> However it is probably more important to be concerned that
>> that we have an environment that necessitate that mode.
>> 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>

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list