trust networks and class

avri avri at
Sat Jun 21 11:06:26 CEST 2003

this is a personal opinion.

while reading the list on this topic, i have been having
trouble with the word 'trust'.  just as others have issues
with the word 'class'.

when i hear that a certain set of tasks were given to those
the AD trusts, i immediately hear that those not chosen
were not trusted.  it does not take much of a jump,
at least for me, to then believe that the reason someone
did not get an editorship, a chair or a seat on a directorate is
because they were not trusted, i.e. either did not earn the
trust of those in a position to grant positions or did something
to render themselves untrustworthy.  and while i am
well aware of the fact that this is a logical fallacy, i believe
it is an emotional fact.

so the term trust network hits me very badly every time i
hear it.  btw, network makes me wonder too, i start wondering
about the topology of someone's trust network, it is hub
and spoke, is it a ring or is it a mesh of some sort?  while
somewhat fanciful, i do believe it is baggage.

it is funny about words.  when i think of class,  i think of
membership in a group with certain attributes.   the kind of
class being defined by some modifier.   but
others have a set of baggage of attached to it that makes
it problematic - they hear class and think warfare.

my personal opinion is that we should avoid both terms.

while it may be an awkward term in this setting, i believe
we are talking about an affinity group, where the members
of the group are grouped based on shared experience,
similar identity and common challenges.  as with classes
and trust networks, affinity groups are sometimes relatively
closed and take energy, sometimes a lot, to enter.

and hopefully the term has not yet gathered any baggage
in the IETF.


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list