Comments on problem statement

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

1.1

   These failures are just those that afflict many small organizations
   trying to make the transition from a small organization which can be
   run informally and where essentially all participants fully share the
   aims, values and motivations of the leadership,

That is NOT the issue, the problem has nothing to do with shared values,
this statement contains exactly the type of arrogant assumption that has
poisoned relationships between the establishment and the proletariat.

When there is a problem with the proletariat refusing to be led blindly the
establishment complain sniffily about 'lack of shared values' - thus putting
themselves up on a pedestal.

Can't you folk see how insulting this attitude is?

The PROBLEM is a well known one that there is a functional limit of about
150 people for informally organized groups. It is a basic limitation of the
human brain, it simply does not have enough RAM to maintain knowledge of
relationships amongst bigger groups.


2.2

This section should address the fact that IETF documents are poorly
formatted in a fixed width font making them VERY hard to read. They look
like a second rate piece of work and many engineers will avoid IETF process
for that reason alone.

This is yet another example of the establishment having its own way without
listening to the membership. Suggest change and you get Dilbert's PHB wet
blanket proceedure.


Also the section should address the fact that many of the engineering
criteria that the IETF thinks it is applying don't actually exist. Case in
point is the ubiquitous reference to 'end-to-end' security. This is actually
a conflation of several pieces of work. Search for an actual definition of
what the doctrine means and you will not find a single coherent statement.
The end-to-end paper itself barely mentions security.

If you read the RFC describing the IAB security workshop which is the
nearest thing to a coherent IETF statement on security you will find it
bears little relation to the received wisdom that is often rammed down the
throats of WGs by people who in most cases are NOT security specialists.


2.6 The IETF Management Structure is not Matched to the Current Size and
    Complexity of the IETF

IT could well be that the ROLE of the IETF management structure is not
matched to the current size and scope. The management structure is
considerably larger than OASIS which at this point is managing an equivalent
number of active specifications.

If the management does less the problem is reduced. To do less the
management have to relinquish control over the process outcome.

I fail to see the fearful penalties that the IESG believe will attend a
faulty spec. In my experience completely broken specs don't make it to
production. There is plenty of brokeness that went into the Web but that
almost always happened as a result of someone deliberately circumventing the
process completely.