what are the real problems

[Erik Guttman]

On Wed, 21 May 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> > You've been around the IETF much longer than I.  Do you sense that the
> > level of conservatism in the IESG has increased over time?
> 
> it's gone both ways.  there are fans of 'let 1000 flowers bloom'
> and there are 'this is now a service' folk.  and, there are folk
> who are trying to find seriously innovative change.
> 
>     It's perfectly appropriate to be upset.  I thought of it in a slightly
>     different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early
>     days, we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP,
>     and so on.  What's been happening over the last few years is that the
>     IETF is filling the rest of the space with every alternative approach,
>     not necessarily any better.  Every possible alternative is now being
>     written down.  And it's not useful.  -- Jon Postel

A shared commitment to conservatism is essential, if only to common
values that we won't compromise.

  Validity is by no means the only standard by which a scientific
  proposition is accepted or rejected. ... These three: validity,
  profundity, and intrinsic human interest underlie jointly the
  valuation of scientific results.

  Suppose now that no limitations of value were imposed on the
  publication of scientific contributions in journals.  The selection -
  which is  indispensible in view of the limited space - would then have
  to be done by some neutral method - say drawing lots.  Immediately the
  journalswould be flooded with rubbish an valuable work would be
  crowded out and banished to obscurity.  Cranks are always abounding
  who will send in spates of nonsense.  Immature, confused, fantastic,
  or else plodding, pedestrian, irrelevant material would be pouring in.
  Swindlers and bunglers combining all variants of deception and
  self-deception would seek publicity.  Buried among so much that is
  specious or slipshod, the few remaining valuable publications could
  hardly have a chance of being recognized.  The swift and reliable
  contacts by which scientists to-day keep each other informed would be
  broken; they would be isolated and their mutual reliance and
  co-operation would be paralysed.

  ...Self-governing institutions of science are effective in
  safeguarding the organized practice of science which embodies and
  transmits their premises.  But their functions are mainly protective
  and regulative and are themselves based... on the preexistence of a
  general harmony of views among scientists.

  Michael Polyani, Science, Faith and Society, 1946

Erik