"trouble maker"
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
pbaker at verisign.com
Tue Jun 24 14:16:12 CEST 2003
At this point making noise about the failure of the IETF is empirically more
productive than actually participating in the broken process.
Serious standards work I take to OASIS, a democratic and genuinely open
forum.
Up until now I have only been taking new XML-based specs there. From this
point on I intend to propose modifications to specifications that IETF
considers that it holds change control on in other forums.
If the IETF wants to influence the future direction of Internet standards I
suggest that it consider dismantling the top-down organization and work out
ways in which it can live up to the claims it makes for openness,
inclusivity and accountability.
Phill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:59 PM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
> Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
>
>
> i see.
>
> i guess making noise about the "failure" of the IETF process is more
> productive then actually participating in the process.
>
> its your call.
>
> -James Seng
>
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > Pure sophistry, the WG process failed because an individual
> was allowed to
> > abuse it for three years. The three years delay was the
> failure of the WG.
> >
> > I want to see evidence the IETF is committed to reform and
> openness before
> > making any appeal.
> >
> >
> > Phill
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:32 PM
> >>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> >>Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
> >>Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
> >>
> >>
> >>The appeal process is a very important aspect of the IETF WG
> >>process. It
> >>is the safe-guard and check-and-balance against the power of the wg
> >>chair. Without the appeal process, the WG process dont make sense.
> >>
> >>Hence, you cannot conclude the WG process dont work if you
> >>dont use the
> >>appeal process.
> >>
> >>This has nothing to do who is chairing or if the same person
> >>is on the
> >>IESG or IAB.
> >>
> >>-James Seng
> >>
> >>Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> >>
> >>>That is not the point I raised which was a failure of the
> >>
> >>IETF WG process,
> >>
> >>>not the appeals process.
> >>>
> >>>The fact that the same individual can abuse the original WG
> >>
> >>process and then
> >>
> >>>participate in the appeals process is relevant however. In
> >>
> >>fact it is even
> >>
> >>>possible in theory for a single individual to chair the
> >>
> >>original WG and
> >>
> >>>participate in both the original and IAB appeal if the
> >>
> >>IESG/IAB liason were
> >>
> >>>involved.
> >>>
> >>> Phill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: James Seng [mailto:jseng at pobox.org.sg]
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:10 PM
> >>>>To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> >>>>Cc: 'problem-statement at alvestrand.no'
> >>>>Subject: Re: "trouble maker"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>If you pursue the appeal process as documented in RFC
> 2026 and you
> >>>>failed despite having all evidences that you should win, I
> >>
> >>will agree
> >>
> >>>>that you have a case to state this as a problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>But you choose not to use the process. And your decision to
> >>
> >>pursue an
> >>
> >>>>alternative appeal *does not* indicate a failure of the IETF
> >>>>appeal process.
> >>>>
> >>>>-James Seng
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
More information about the Problem-statement
mailing list