non-problems

[Mak, L (Leen)]

>  I think the problem-process draft's initial section - "what are the core 
>  values of the IETF that we don't want to lose" - is the  closest thing we 
>  have on the table now to a statemnet of what *not* to  change, or criteria 
>  on which we can judge that change proposals are out of scope.
>  


Allow me to go out of scope. In section 2 of the ietf-problem-proces draft, 
I read: 

>   As we consider changes to the IETF processes and organizational
>    structure, it is important to keep in mind the things about the
>    IETF that we don't want to change -- 
[snip]
>    "We reject kings, presidents and voting.  We believe in rough
>    consensus and running code." -- Dave Clark

I wonder whether I am really the only one who is thinking that this 
"things-about-the-IETF-that-we-don't-want-to-change" attitude 
threatens to make the whole attempt to improve futile.

All over the world, civilisations found that the proces of having town 
meetings where everyone can talk and argue and talk and argue 
ad infinitum or until (rough) consensus, simply does not scale. 
Voting, and delegating executive power to presidents, has been found to 
be working, albeit far from ideal, instruments to deal with this scalability 
problem. 
To me it is a mystery why people seem to think that IETF can escape 
from these scalability problems and go on with the town meeting model.

Take for example this problem-statement list. In the last month, about 
400 emails were sent. More than 80% were written by less than 20 
contributors (i.e. about 1 % of the average attendance of the 10 most
recent IETF meetings). 
Just a few observations, based on the postings to the list. I concluded that, 
in order to contribute succesfully:
1) one needs to have plenty of spare time, not only to read but also to 
digest all these 100's of messages;
2) one should have more than average, intimate, personal knowledge of 
many years of IETF and IESG history, because many assertions are being 
made which cannot be valued if one lacks such knowledge;
3) it is very preferable to be a native English speaker, because sometimes 
the language is so subtle and sparse that the meaning is very difficult to 
grasp.
For me these are serious signals that some of the core values (like
"everyone can speak up and all opinions count") are already (irretrievably?) 
lost. I think it is better to acknowledge that and to improve given such
context, than to try to stick to the belief that the old values are still valid.

I have been taught that the internet is based on ideas of people who
were able to really think out of the box. Why is it than, when it comes
to organisation and processes, that this community appears to be so
conservative?

Leen Mak