Re: [apps-discuss] We have no lambs

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> Let me say up front that I think this entire conversation is great

And let me say up front that I do, too.  Also:

> You may all feel free to decide that I'm completely full of it. That's what
> this organization is supposed to allow. In fact, if 20 of you think that I
> am sufficiently full of it at any point, we have a procedure to deal with

In no sense did I mean to imply that you're "full of it", completely
or partially.  And, of course, it goes without saying that no
procedures are forthcoming.  This is mostly an academic exercise, to
make sure that everyone's considering the same sorts of things.

> As I said above, I don't think that anything I said means that "I won't
> listen".

This is part of what I was getting at:
"Such input is useless," which, when it's my input turns into, "Your
input is useless," is -- at least to some people -- another way of
saying, "so I won't be paying it any mind."  One response to that
could be -- and is likely to be, for some people -- "Well, geez, then
I might as well go away."

On the other hand, focusing on what you *do* need in order to do your
job is an angle that's more likely to prompt people to give that,
and... be heard.  That's really the core of what I was trying to get
across.

But now you've brought up something else entirely, so let's pursue this:

> Call me naïve, but the IETF is not supposed to be a hierarchical
> organization like that (behavior of some folks and some adopted procedures
> notwithstanding). We're supposed to be a consensus organization, where we
> all listen to well-reasoned technical arguments

I don't think for a moment that you're naïve, but you're speaking
naïvely here, if you really think that there's no hierarchy as things
are perceived by many participants.  *Lots* of people here -- probably
not those participating in this thread, but lots who are less active,
and certainly a great many of the newer participants -- hold the I*
folks up, consider them to be on pedestals, in ivory towers, or
whatever.  There certainly *is* a very strong perception of hierarchy,
and you certainly *do* have to make a special point of being open and
making it clear that you are.  Not to me, not to John Klensin... but
to, oh, say, at least half of the attendees at a face-to-face meeting,
and to a much higher percentage of those on the mailing lists.

You also have more control than you're letting on, here, and more than
many would like you to have, in using DISCUSS positions, in
controlling charters, in controlling BoF scheduling, in appointing
chairs, and so on.  You can have a significant effect on the
documents, and we can all think of our favourite stories of ADs doing
what we consider to be nasty things to our work.

Don't downplay that, and what it means to the responsibility that you
have in light of it.

Barry