Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to InformationalRFC

[todd glassey]

I'm sorry Spencer - I guess maybe I should ask what
part of "refusing to hear anyone else's concerns or
allow any reasonable focus on the issues raised by
non-insiders" don't you understand?       he-he,
Sorry - I couldn't resist...

Hey - No one said the group was supposed to create
solutions or even do in-depth analysis. Its function
was to collect and document a set of issues, and
(IMHO) the problem it seems was it (the WG chairs)
didn't want to listen to anything that anyone but a
select few had to say about it... "Lets keep our IETF
pure"... rah rah rah - and if this is not true it
certainly is what one would think from reading the
archive as it sits today, but what the hey  - that also
is modifiable too right?


Standard Disclaimers apply.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>;
<iesg at ietf.org>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution
Process' to InformationalRFC


> Honestly.
>
> What part of the sentence "It is not a part of this
group's charter to
> propose solutions to the
> problems" seems unclear? It appears fairly
prominently in
>
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/problem-charter.html...
>
> Spencer
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
> To: <iesg at ietf.org>
> Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution
Process' to
> InformationalRFC
>
>
> > I have a real issue with this language as proposed
> > herein. The Problem Statement working group was not
> > interested in "fixing or solving the IETF's
problems"
> > or in actually identifying  any problems beyond the
> > small list that the WG Chairs and the In-crowd of
the
> > group wanted to focus on exclusively. The net of
this
> > is that so many views and concerns  were omitted
that
> > the resulting documents can hardly be called a
> > consensus except between the specific advocates of
> > those documents.
> >
> > This is a demonstration of the critical failing of
the
> > IETF to adequately represent anyone but the
"insiders"
> > in any situation and clearly IMHO demonstrates the
lack
> > of Fair and Open processes.
> >
> > Todd Glassey
> >
>