<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>[governance] Re: organizational
orientation</title></head><body>
<div>Dear Stephane,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thank you very much for referencing these two key documents.
I hope people on the list look at them.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>i take your point that the IETF is not perfect. But I also
note that the first reference concentrates on the problem statement
and the way to improve the situation. I quote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote><font face="Courier TU" size="+2"
color="#000000">"Taken in isolation, this document may appear to
be exceedingly negative. The IETF needs to refresh its
management and processes to address today's challenges, but it should
not be forgotten that the IETF has produced a large body of high
quality work which has lead to an extremely successful and pervasive
network infrastructure. Against this background, we should see
the current document as a necessary piece of self-criticism leading to
renewal and continued success.</font>"</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
<div>I think that's a pretty good objective.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The Narten document rightly tries to acclimatize newbies to the
IETF culture. As you point out, it's really different than the
UN culture, or any other where diplomacy is a major factor.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm not comparing the IETF to a golden ideal that might be
achieved when we all attain god-like status. I'm comparing it to
other organizations here on earth. Given the pervasiveness of
favoritism, corruption, and non-representativeness that unfortunately
are commonplace in human institutions, in my opinion the IETF
stands out as a fair body, oriented to real results, and using the
best talent offered to it to produce those results.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>It is true that some opinions count much more than others. I
never denied that. But the reason those opinions count much more
is probably that they are held by someone with lots of experience and
with a good track record of producing for the organization, NOT
that they are the opinions of a nephew of a powerful cabinet minister
(for example).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>George</div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<span
></span>~~~~~</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 5:56 PM +0200 5/29/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:25:48PM
-0400,<br>
George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@attglobal.net> wrote<br>
a message of 67 lines which said:<br>
<br>
> IETF operates as a meritocracy. It has no legal existence,
and<br>
> anyone can register for and attend an IETF meeting. it
doesn't<br>
> matter where you are from, who you work for, what color, gender
you<br>
> are, or any other attribute of your personal life and/or
beliefs<br>
> that have no bearing on how well you think, contribute or
perform.<br>
> Once you are in one of its sessions, you are judged almost<br>
> completely by the ideas that you contribute to the
discussion.<br>
<br>
The good thing about the IETF is that it values plain and frank<br>
speaking (unlike UN organizations or ICANN which value diplomatic<br>
speech).<br>
<br>
That's why, to rebuke your affirmation, you can use IETF documents<br>
themselves. For instance, the RFC 3774 "IETF Problem
Statement"</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt>
explains very clearly why your<br>
representation is too idealistic.<br>
<br>
Other IETF material, such as Thomas Narten's excellent tutorial
for<br>
IETF beginners, which are performed at the beginning of every
IETF</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>meeting
<http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/newwork-0.pdf>,</blockquote
>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>also say quite the opposite of the nice
legend you described. For<br>
instance, the opinions of known people count *much* more.<br>
<br>
> In therms of treatment of individuals, this is one of the
fairest, most<br>
> egalitarian groups I know.<br>
<br>
Sure, IETF is more open than the GAC, less secretive than the ISO,<br>
technically better than ITU, etc. Big deal. "In the kingdom of
blind<br>
men the one-eyed is king."<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>