Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process
Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Jun 9 15:40:58 CEST 2003
I agree with Randy on its the grass below.
One fix would be to list all names of spec writers in drafts not just
the editor or first alphabetical name.
Also whats up with that new rule that went down that we can't list 10
authors. I thought that was entirely bogus and don't recall an open
discussion on that at all it just was mandated and I thought that was
completely wrong. maybe I missed the group that openly discussed that
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:41 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process
> (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)
> > 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