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

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at
Mon Jun 9 15:49:49 CEST 2003


On this one and few issues I don't agree.  I agree with Eric we need
incentives.  And WGs must be free to experiment and reach for resolution
within reason to solve problems and do engineering design.  And I am
sorry but I have an issue with some group or unseen force dictating
anyting if they don't have the techncial expertise for that subject
matter.  I don't think that is what you stated but that could be the

For example I have seen where an AD says to the WG I don't think this
group has that "expertise".  That is outright bullshit and bordering on
elitism I simply hate.  Thats why we get pissed at ADs too and in this
case we all knew far more than the AD technically on the subject they
were saying we did not have the expertise as base.  They were WRONG. We
did correct this behavior and statement in reasonable way I will add.
But it took time. And that should not have happen.  My point is I don't
have much use or support any elitism in our community.  

I am not say general direction is not good in fact it is. My fear you
know well with me from real life in the OSI days where architects in a
particular company built an entire architecture for networking and when
it got to engineering it simply was not implementable.  What I fear are
elistist architects who mandate technical policy who never wrote "hello
world/" as extreme example.  And worse yet never had a job where they
were responsible for "shipping" products.  I am not saying all should
have this background I am saying some resemblance of these attributes
should be part of the process.  Not just elitist architecture

As side comment I saw yours and Haralds IPv6 discussion about deployment
with all due respect you don't know the half of it because your not
living it from my view but only discussing it.  People in WGs live it
not discuss it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc at] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:52 PM
> To: Eric Rescorla
> Cc: problem-statement at
> Subject: Re: Trusting the IESG to manage the reform process 
> (was:Re:DoingtheRight Things?)
> Eric,
> ER> I ask again: what incentives do the WGs have to produce documents 
> ER> that meet the IESG's definition of quality?
> I think you just highlighted a key problem:
> The IESG can and must provide a quality control mechanism.  
> But it is the community that must define the necessary quality.
> And, yes, "the community" is a pretty darn fuzzy construct, 
> which is why we end up with each AD (and each IAB member) 
> defining their own criteria and applying them independently.
> 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.
> d/
> --
>  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