Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Glen Zorn <> Sun, 12 August 2012 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B364E11E80A3 for <>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.311
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.311 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.287, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vzjPe6l4hH7G for <>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22D6611E8091 for <>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pbbrr4 with SMTP id rr4so5050342pbb.31 for <>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=ErLMH54t+kxjb+NMY/0itYktjesLkSubgekWWScPZq8=; b=BFdUR6wDT2dkWTVb6ZCGgATVa7Ba08Xu9KmlBRo8D2Uejgs9zxNVUVG4+0cvx8yNDl DYo15j3Vo1UqkwfihhwzkvaCTrRtNl1UB09LFQ8FklpYWODPd1GEQxPq0Juay575/hJk cyNivmACCz16QHeoMUxp9L1twpJichhobrFv7mLBbmTHePQX0Rj2EVWNJuEAdynDcwYz jlR/SxEJLufdnYCB94MurJARPbBtmUzrkBVeGYIgcNcGlH8bEnqY3zmCgKdL14E7h34U 3hmH9eLRr6VpowrPi/6LtbAVR0pD451QkH2pRh6ytXSzi5uNe4L/cWsWbCbM1KzXa1gq fz6w==
Received: by with SMTP id bi10mr16321423pab.10.1344737168920; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPS id wi6sm2396194pbc.35.2012. (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:06:08 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
From: Glen Zorn <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-bTBlgMwhk+EYf0sSPhFb"
Organization: Network Zen
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:06:04 +0700
Message-ID: <1344737164.8891.29.camel@gwz-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 02:06:10 -0000

On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker <> wrote:
> > consensus-oriented process
> Sometimes, though, you have to act.
> While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer.
> Grüße, Carsten
> *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons.  
> That may have to do when time is of the essence.
> (That's also what you choose your leadership for.  
> If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)

Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping?
Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers,
chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the
opinions of others into account in that selection.  He was not
"elected", nor does he "speak for the IETF"; ditto for Bernard.  If they
wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW),
that's fine.  If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed &
otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to
imply that they somehow "represent" me or any one other than themselves.
If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online
petition of some sort would be a much better idea & much less deceptive.