Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List

Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com> Sun, 08 April 2012 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <walter.stanish@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E85621F8554 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FwF1JLmepBoH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1E021F8531 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbtb4 with SMTP id tb4so5791652obb.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Lpw9XsNV5kDCAS/+bZDbCixMMOP4dMOFJWk9GLAGn8g=; b=z0byZ1Du3umCECwdTLWLJx9LsW+gxfu4p0V5sY6ZRkCi785PQxNEC7SUNtsO5St2f0 7iVNmq2hRyT/KD5Hq7FWYY6y0w52W1cvaKNSEZZq2K18/asHG7tDURuYTp1voAB/ZxUw rzK49jMTUH2DN/1NXgY9oGsQr2NMt0vsNKsZANvG6mAjcAECfqn5PzAO74SqEhifC/Ge uYuUlGqv3HA8eVoMkoFlUOCCTnaeg+MvJF6TlYRiYoZpwmhU4VEpyW2ySlzNmT75LFDy cbCSPwHuOLWLkMFYIgpL0l+RGi9dZGcZbcp/oqRX+ofF3op8S+encjBcNGokkdi1Cil3 u+FA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.14.36 with SMTP id m4mr7203507oec.37.1333924222919; Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.9.8 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Apr 2012 15:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAVskwy8kWkra40UA7ZaPdoAr6YeKR-Ltfz8VFboPS6LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4F5ADDCA.80303@KingsMountain.com> <CACwuEiPuvW=DxpwHjcOMs+_T9-4YaBSMB+rm-1LX_nJoswk_qg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiQ1=c+Dr56jN02HCzVSUyUaFoLG96Aq=1Ru4sMFdttaA@mail.gmail.com> <CACwuEiNfA0waTd6ypLotg+=jus6N4JDw8F4T2o04hnfqTXNL1A@mail.gmail.com> <4F60968D.4020703@stpeter.im> <D50DAB3A-39D0-486F-A329-002DA3DE309A@tzi.org> <CAGQP0AFJnfrNqM2MRWvEVzJzFvU94mntA8mFeJLz3gGqMa61xw@mail.gmail.com> <CACwuEiPgr8ovD2hB8nH2kpjLwck2cNTV52j3T=su-x1atxnjwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQP0AEEodF1UeZCR_5Mdf0RjMKQZZFAeyaDBx+OJNH_cvGT_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAGQP0AGHyJKw-LyYS1TiANBoDb5BxNEjY_g8z5nni-tY3FMfUA@mail.gmail.com> <CACwuEiOUq7FEbEt1c33M9cRz3tMvDG=feYb5jTRLvwXDPSgztw@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVAVskwy8kWkra40UA7ZaPdoAr6YeKR-Ltfz8VFboPS6LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 05:30:22 +0700
Message-ID: <CACwuEiPMLgnquotK=EXaTqewykrnXUhVOCGUiQ=D8bH3p3S-DA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Walter <walter.stanish@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposal for a Finance Area Mailing List
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:30:24 -0000

> Given the clear consensus in the Applications Area, the Applications
> ADs have decided NOT to create the proposed mailing list.  We suggest
> that the proponents use Google, Yahoo!, or some other free service to
> discuss their proposals with their many interested collaborators, and
> consider coming to the IETF with a BoF proposal or working group
> proposal when things are more solidly defined and ready to start real
> protocol work.
>
> Walter:
> We understand that you will not be happy with this response, but this
> is clearly the consensus of the Applications Area participants and we
> tend to agree with them. That said, we do want to add that many of
> your messages, particularly the private ones to us, can best be
> described as impatient and at worst, mean spirited, implying that any
> refusal to create this mailing list only proves that the IETF is a
> useless organization and that you'd simply "take your ball and go
> home."  That's probably not the best way to gain the cooperation of
> the community. We did set that aside (indeed, asking the rest of the
> community, which was unaware of the content of our off-list messages)
> and decided based on the potential benefits to the Internet and the
> IETF, and the consensus of community.
>
> Barry and Pete, Applications Area Directors

Thanks ("Barry and") Pete.

Certainly, this is an *extremely* disappointing result and one that is
in direct contrast to (1) previous communications (2) reasonable
expectations from the internet finance innovation community (3) the
IETF's own mission statement.

Before closing out discussions around the request it does
unfortunately seem, particularly given the rather extended and
unflattering characterization of my person and perspective that you
somehow thought to weave in to your response, necessary to raise a few
honest points of concern with your statements.  You will note that
these points will continue to be focused on the matter at hand rather
than personal character.

(Regarding your negative statements regarding my person, and it is
both regrettable for them to have occurred and - due to the nature of
the forum - for me to be obliged to comment further, I am happy either
accept your immediate and total retraction of all statements regarding
my character or agreement to publish the full contents of the limited
number of our off-list communications that you insinuate were in
demonstration of poor faith or character on my part in order to clear
my name for the public record - your choice, but promptly please.)

Firstly, the phrase "discussion at the Paris meeting continued the
skepticism from the community that such a list will do anything useful
for IETF work." is at odds with the IETF charter which commits to
providing a forum for technical matters relating to the internet
community.  The IETF charter is certainly NOT "to do anything useful
for existing IETF work" (this is so Kafkaesque as to be laughable, if
it were not so worrisome.  Consider "The disease which inflicts
bureaucracy and what they usually die from is routine." -- John Stuart
Mill). More concretely, why should financial exchange continue to be
excluded from open consideration under the IETF whilst telephony,
messaging and other 'applications' are not?  No objection was made
when this question was raised earlier and in fact supporting
statements from IETF history were made.

Secondly, the phrase "resource spent in the management" seems almost a
joke considering how much time has been requested and willingly
volunteered over the past 4-5 months for the mere 'consideration' of
this matter.  To the observer it would appear that a mailing list runs
itself, and nought further has been requested.  If there is some issue
of financial or human resource relating to administration then surely
this should be detailed explicitly?

Thirdly, the phrase "there's a worry that an IETF list may simply be
used to claim that the IETF backs this work (which it doesn't, at
least not yet), and perhaps, worse, that it backs it in preference to
other related proposals." is nonsensical - there is probably a strong
case that the IETF has an identity crisis. Firstly, the IETF's own
documentation clearly states that there is no such thing as membership
of the IETF and that it is effectively participation driven, with
output being communications.  The IETF does not 'back' anything.
Opening a mailing list and inviting participation is akin to
requesting participation and perspective (and thus, "IETF
participation") from relevant parts of the internet community at large
(such participation is equally if not more transparent and valid than
discussion at physical meetings in particular languages and
timezones). As this has not occurred to date, the IETF community in
all likelihood cannot, should not, and will not claim any authority
within the internet financial exchange sphere *anyway*, so who in this
worrisome what-if world would care for their perceived backing?  This
whole point seems to be based on a premature and spurious question.
In fact, *it is only by engaging in transparent, peer-reviewed
discussions of exactly the type proposed - a mailing list hosted for
the greater community - that we, the volunteer community of
participants, can claim to have any authority of output whatsoever*.

Fourthly, the insinuation that "real protocol work" occurs only within
the IETF not only completely and demonstrably spurious but quite
frankly condescending to the internet community at large given the
nature of your response.

Putting aside the above, and looking at the path of this proposal over
the time since last December when it was initially made, perhaps IETF
procedures would benefit from some good faith review, since IETF
relevance to the modern internet community seems - at least from this
quarter - to be in the throws of being largely undermined.

Regarding the path forward for our proposed area of interest, the
various quarters of the internet finance innovation community with
which we have been in touch thus far will be forced to converge on an
alternate, non-IETF forum.  Whilst this could have been done months
ago, the expedient option was sacrificed willingly in order to try to
work with the IETF... an unfortunate but nonetheless well meant
decision that I for one am very happy to stand by in hindsight... even
if without mincing words it does rather seem that fair and democratic
ideals are being viscerally dismembered by bureaucracy while an
agreeable but disengaged audience idles nearby, engaged in the
discreet patter of polite conversation with the occasional raised
eyebrow and a glass of pleasant Parisian white, reaping the
comfortable benefits of prior social engagement.

To my mind, today is a sad day both for the internet community and for the IETF.

Yet consider...

"Tis better to have loved and lost
 Than never to have loved at all" -- Tennyson

and

"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims." -- Aristotle

(Truly, one should never take oneself too seriously.)

Transparency triumphs in the end!

Walter Stanish
Payward, Inc.

PS: Development will continue elsewhere and an appropriate message
will be posted here once a venue is established, just for the record.
Cheerio for the moment, then!