making strategic problems concrete

Bound, Jim Jim.Bound at hp.com
Mon Mar 24 17:56:27 CET 2003


And if ADs are consistently correct they should remain and I don't care
if that is 20 years as a note.  I don't believe in term limits for
anyone in any arena if they are doing a good job with honor and support
the members.  Its not like everyone wants to do this job either.

But I really object when anyone calls the IESG bad guys for decsions. 

Note I am using "guys" in context that should really be bad people.

I think we have to much "gender" words in the IETF as a note.  Don't get
me wrong I am a conservative and pretty much can't take the left at all,
but I do believe strongly in valuing differences and avoiding gender.  I
don't even like words like he, she, him, her.  


/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bound, Jim 
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:45 PM
> To: James Kempf; Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: making strategic problems concrete
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> Thanks.  I see your view.
> 
> Part of being an IESG member is making hard decisions.  They 
> should not be bad guys for that reason.  If the decisions are 
> consistently wrong by an AD they should be replaced.
> 
> /jim
> 
>  
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 5:11 PM
> > To: Bound, Jim; Dave Crocker; problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> > Subject: Re: making strategic problems concrete
> > 
> > 
> > Jim,
> > 
> > > I hear you saying if consensus does not work then we may need an
> > > alternative to decision process?
> > >
> > 
> > Here is what I'm saying:
> > 
> > 1) Concensus works best in small group situations. To the
> > extent we can get problems defined such that the number of 
> > people involved in solving them is amiable to the concensus 
> > process, we should.
> > 
> > 2) If concensus should fail, we either need to learn to live
> > with the bad side effects (delay in reaching agreement, 
> > deadlock, designs that are overly complicated due to the need 
> > to accommodate many different view points) or we need to 
> > define some way of dealing with the bad side effects when 
> they occur.
> > 
> > Throwing the burden on the IESG to resolve the bad side
> > effects of a failed concensus, as we do now, is not a good 
> > solution because it makes more work for them and forces them 
> > to play the role of perpetual bad guys.
> > 
> >             jak
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list