Response to WG last call, Problem Statement: Thoughts on the IET F problem statement

[Marshall Rose]

> I believe the fact that the IETF has technically competent leaders who are 
> expected to use that competence when leading the organization is a central 
> reason why the IETF has been successful in a number of areas where ISO, 
> ANSI, ITU and many others have failed.
> 
> I also disagree with your comments about the value of corporate membership 
> and the value of doing work (almost) only at face-to-face meetings (while I 
> agree that sometimes more face-to-face meetings are useful).
> 
> Differentiation is not a goal in itself.
> But neither is being like others.
    
i'm going to take this opportunity to agree with, and amplify, what
harald is saying.
    
each different style of organization has its own set of advantages, and
frankly, none of the styles have succeeded to the point of achieving
"one size fits all status" -- it is still the case where the "best tool
should be used for the job".
    
i believe now, as i did during the ietf's "post-kobe revolution", that
the fundamentals of the ietf remain strong. hence, i'm interested in
seeing what can be done in the way of an ietf "point release" (moving
from 0.91 to 0.92).
    
/mtr