Fixed font v multiple fonts

[todd glassey]

We are not talking about the Chinese Culture, or the current government of
China, we are talking about that the IETF standards process is more like
"The Family Feud" than anyone ever bargained for. You argue a bunch of
questions before the WG Chair and then republish your big guess just to get
to round three where the IESG stumps you with a no-faith vote, or avoids the
question all together.

Hell there is no "legal" reason for the IETF to publish anything, and if you
doubt that read the RFC's and the new IPR documents where the IP Rights are
defined. Its hysterical.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <jseng at pobox.org.sg>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>;
<problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>;
"'Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)'" <lars-erik.jonsson at ericsson.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts


> Ah, but we dont do "consensus", unlike JTC1 or other organisation. We do
> "rough consensus" and there is a big differences.

No we dont. What we do is a "public agreement" process wherein a group of
three or four individuals make virtually all, if not in fact all the
decisions on each and every one of the IETF's standard initiatives within
their hosting WG, and any dissenterrs voices have been set up to be
eliminated via RFC2418 or other disicplinary processes.

>
> "If you are in Rome, do as a Roman."

Oh you mean spend... that's it, spend...

>
> You can't compare IETF culture with any other organisation just like you
> cannot compare a Chinese culture using American culture presumation.

Right - but any analyst can build an IETF Standards workflow from RFC2026,
2223,  2418 and the new IPR I-D's and document the various decision gates
and their influencing or controling factors...  When done one would then
extract specific phrases and ideas codified in these three secular IETF
documents and point out how the work flows violate the words and certainly
their spirit... Hmmmm -

>
> -James Seng
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
> > James - the problem is that a consensus doesn't exist in the IETF. A
> > consensus is based on a concept of a number of people actually being
able to
> > vote on something and that doesn't exist here. What does exist here is a
> > concept of micro-special interest groups that come together to
specifically
> > advance **their** initiatives at the expense and to stop all others that
> > would  compete with them. If you doubt this do a work flow analysis on
> > RFC2026, RFC2223, and RFC2418 as it pertains to the standards track
> > processes.
> >
> > What you will find is that you are clearly wrong here, and that also is
one
> > of the problems with the IETF. What I am saying is that in the current
> > system any group of people declaring themselves the majority first are
> > accorded that.
> >
> > Today the mighty win always in the IETF, but this too ***is*** going to
> > change.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "James Seng" <jseng at pobox.org.sg>
> > To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>
> > Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; "Keith Moore" <moore at cs.utk.edu>;
> > "'Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)'" <lars-erik.jonsson at ericsson.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts
> >
> >
> >
> >>I guess when the rough consensus is not going your way, it is "top-down
> >>decision". Hello??
> >>
> >>Lars have his rights to his opinion as much as you do.
> >>
> >>-James Seng
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have never spent half as much time getting a document format right as
> >
> > I
> >
> >>>have for the IETF. Even the W3C rules for HTML are not as much hassle.
> >>>
> >>>Again, the issue is who gets to decide.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>