Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe
randy at psg.com
Sun Jun 8 18:41:16 CEST 2003
> The IESG held TLS for nearly a year because they insisted that
> their be a mandatory algorithm and that it be DH/3DES/SHA. No
> other group of 13 people in the IETF could have done that, no
> matter how big a stink they raised. In point of fact, 2 or 3 ADs
> could have done this.
false. the authors could have. the editor(s) if they existed
could have. the wg chair(s) could have. respected members of the
security directorate could have. ... and my guess, though i am
not a security expert, is that they probably SHOULD HAVE.
> I ask again: what incentives do the WGs have to produce documents
> that meet the IESG's definition of quality?
as a multi-decade manager of O(20^(2-3)) engineers, i came to the
conclusion that 82.3% of whether an engineer produces quality is
whether they have pride in their work and their team. the classic
hiring manager's joke about engineers is that we ask "what is the
project and with whom will i be working. .... oh yes, my spouse
told me to ask about salary and benefits."
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
the height of the fence. a fair portion of our culture is weak on
giving credit where it is due, saying "this was maude's idea, not
mine," etc. when the culture was smaller in number, it was easier
for the work to be known by the person(s) who produced it. this is
good and bad, depending on whether the work is good or not so good
(i will resist examples:-). if we spent more of our time praising
and encouraging the good work of our peers as opposed to labeling
them as idiots, black helicopter pilots, etc. perhaps we all would
take the necessary corrective constructive criticism a bit better
and the results would be better.
More information about the Problem-statement