Re: Just so I'm clear

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4B721F8C48 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLmf2vWCJZLz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-da0-f44.google.com (mail-da0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF6F21F8C39 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-da0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h15so75047dan.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=e2zq02Hx4FPVsIZU1aD1+hklwlH7ROL3EzZ2FzM/1wM=; b=huqtTKq/spD3Y16vjgzbfZivHlFp6N7AZBQxpgBGyGmsLEBfR96rdYlpLxvwC6Cy24 43TkwISh8i1ubDnFs5/mEMUHpLFjwEkOGCXYlYK8ctt8+k3brOqLWNt8Hnoen120LRGG puIInmbP0ONFwIkQwvVry8ka0pvbqh4MVWR72slhks8drLhTjgCdVsBAXEh80AFtvtMb RvokVl4/ZKwR9Iyg7XYEcjns8kAGa+Kn48wyhxrnJTsuEmlvO60sbZ3y+KLwLwpqddK5 abSAeIvRXpaaolkEZDbSAFdBfkdU7pDwN1HbrJDPc+3Tv5z+HSxLDpIm9Dv7plxx9RF3 3qdQ==
Received: by 10.68.200.227 with SMTP id jv3mr46415407pbc.162.1351055052819; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (216-67-49-109-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [216.67.49.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k6sm5049574paz.8.2012.10.23.22.04.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <508776CA.7070208@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:04:10 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Just so I'm clear
References: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <5086EF82.9060900@dougbarton.us> <20121023200713.GC1861@nsn.com> <5086FBCE.2070503@dougbarton.us> <20121023213251.GF27557@verdi> <50873AB4.1000905@dougbarton.us> <20121024034736.GC52558@crankycanuck.ca> <50876D39.20502@dougbarton.us> <508773E7.10203@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <508773E7.10203@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:04:14 -0000

On 10/23/12 8:51 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> There are actually very few ITU rules, and very many guidelines.  The
> latter are the exact opposite of rigid, but subject to overturning by
> Member States at any time.  I had thought that we were roughly the same
> in that regard, so as to avoid a perversity.  We've had any number of
> debates on this list about not creating process without a reason. 
> Fine.  The price for that is that you have to deal with these sorts of
> circumstances as and when they arise, using rough consensus as your guide.

I was away from the IETF for several years and was surprised by the
degree of ossification I found when I returned.  I would very much
like to see us find some way to restore some agility.  That said,
consensus-y processes scale poorly in cases where there's substantial
disagreement.  On the other hand, what I've seen so far in this
discussion is two roughly sorted groups of responses:  1) "yes," and
2) "I am not comfortable with this process."  There doesn't seem to
be anybody saying "No" on the merits of the question, but concern
that saying "yes" will violate some processes we've put in place.

I am curious to know whether or not there are people who feel that
Marshall shouldn't be considered to have quit IAOC.  If there's
nobody who feels that way I'm personally great with going ahead
without a recall.  If we've got basic agreement that Marshall
needs to be replaced it seems to me that we're good to go ahead and
do so.  If we don't have agreement, then it's time to go through the
process.

Melinda