Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process (was:Re:Doingthe Right Things?)

Dave Crocker dhc at
Sun Jun 8 23:23:06 CEST 2003


>> ps. exercise for the reader:
>>     1) which statement and about whom?

RB> your quoted at the top of the message.  the part you deleted.

Presumably you mean:
>>> Still, we need to find reasonable, community based criteria --
>>> beyond just the criteria of the working group, so that it
>>> represents a broader view -- with the IESG enforcing it, rather
>>> than inventing it.

>>     2) extra credit: what about the statement was incorrect and why?

RB> the comments i made that you also deleted

Including brief text segments, for context reference, is rather
different than "deleting" text. Given your own predilection for cryptic
reference, it's odd that you would describe it so pejoratively.

In any event:

> 1.
> RB> does not scale.  this is still the mode where the authors, wgs,
> RB> chairs, ... wuss out.

> 2.
> RB> quality management 101: the philosophy of building quality has to
> RB> be pushed to the edges so it encompasses the whole organization.

1) Note that you did not address the contradiction between your two

2) You did not explain who is left, after you dismiss the worth of
authors, wgs and chairs, and

3) what is it, for example, about "community based criteria" that will
not scale.  And what is it you are suggesting as an alternative that a)
is practical, b) WILL scale, and c) is acceptable to the IETF community
(ie, the folks on whose behalf area directors are supposed to operate)?

 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list