pekkas at netcore.fi
Fri Jun 27 11:32:40 CEST 2003
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> "i.e. there should be no place for the term "trouble maker" in IETF
> documents. "
> I agree, I think that the problem here is that it becomes very easy for a
> partisan chair to further reinforce his power by invoking this phrase.
> DNSSEC has just produced a spec that cannot be deployed. The WG was in favor
> of fixing the spec but the chair as we all know had other ideas.
> Pointing out that the spec was broken resulted in numerous atempts to
> intimidate me by 'reporting me to my management' as a 'trouble maker'. Like
> get a clue, who do you think had asked me to push for the protocol changes
> in the first place?
I think the last sentence is interesting and troubling, at the same time.
One doesn't interest the interests of the employer/management in the IETF.
Now, I just tried to look at some documents, including:
- the TAO
- newcomer's orientation web page and slides
- some additional introductory slides linked under www.ietf.org
.. and it seems apparent to me that this "tenet" isn't being stated as
explicitly as it should. So, there seems to be a problem in the
training/education of regular IETF participants (and not just the
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
More information about the Problem-statement