Sloppy Charters (was: Re: Discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering)

[John C Klensin]

Randy,

Your explanation is exactly the reason I keep suggesting that,
until and unless the community really starts expressing strong
support for load-reduction activities generally and those that
involve saying "no" (or "it isn't good enough, fix it") in
particular, it is difficult for "blaming" the IESG for doing
anything other than making the best of a bad situation.  

I (and (I hope many others) have certainly noticed the "say 'no'
to anything you like, as long as it isn't _my_ idea" nonsense.
The community, and not just the IESG, needs to push back on that
stuff, or we are all, I fear, doomed.

So, on that dimension at least, thanks for trying and please
keep it up.

      john


--On Saturday, June 07, 2003 14:38 -0700 Randy Bush
<randy at psg.com> wrote:

>> And, personally, I believe _that_ problem has no solution at
>> all  unless and until a majority of the IESG are ready to
>> stand up  and say "we are seriously overloaded, and we are
>> ready to do  something about it.  We understand that starts
>> with accepting  the fact that we really can't do everything
>> and then moves on to  being willing (and anxious) to look
>> closely at any proposal that  might plausibly reduce load."
> 
> some of us have executed the load reduction proposals by trying
> to say "no" to some things and by getting review teams in
> place.
> 
> there are problems with this
> 
>   o everybody thinks we should say "no," but to other people's
>     bright ideas, not theirs.
> 
>   o we catch hell for saying "no" to anything.
> 
>   o i often catch hell for having review teams and directorates
>     to help me because, among other things, i bet my ass on
>     reviewers i know and choose, not those chosen by public
>     beauty contests.  note that it is my signature that goes
> on a     directorate's recommendation.
> 
> damned if you do, damned if you don't.  so, i do what seems
> right.
> 
> randy
>