Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Mon, 13 August 2012 02:58 UTC
Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.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 3033F21F86A4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.84
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.84 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_INFO=1.448, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311]
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 odfGmOhLrb21 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.yitter.info (ow5p.x.rootbsd.net [208.79.81.114]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC01521F869E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (ip-64-134-66-185.public.wayport.net [64.134.66.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 998938A031 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:46 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 22:58:49 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)
Message-ID: <20120813025849.GA93948@mail.yitter.info>
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org> <50267826.70307@bbiw.net> <CAC4RtVARm1fXvHR4dv9Jh0HttW+ORhRx36kwF54RRjc4aOh1AQ@mail.gmail.com> <5027D0B2.80306@bbiw.net> <CALaySJKzxo=oHLcDxT=RbrwMK=pTSh6vxY-VvLZ0C5wf+T-DQQ@mail.gmail.com> <5027D67B.2030409@dcrocker.net> <5027ED27.2040403@cisco.com> <DDFE0F39-380E-49DB-B0E5-451AB659AFAE@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DDFE0F39-380E-49DB-B0E5-451AB659AFAE@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:49 -0000
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: > > I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We > should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities > that include the IETF Why is it useful? As far as I know, this is the very first time we have had a problem shaped exactly like this. There have been other issues with different sets of parties on other multilateral activities, but they appear to have demanded a different kind of response, since that's what they got. It seems to me that we could better spend our energies working on standards (using our actual standards development model rather than the abstract approximation in the affirmation!) than in working up rules to govern a circumstance that, we should all hope, will not arise again in our lifetimes. Not every single bit of human interaction requires a process rule. Some things just require judgement, and I encourage "the leadership" -- people we put (via the nomcom) into the position to exercise such judgement -- to do so. Best, A PS: I have on purpose not commented about the proposed statement, because the request was for strong objections, and I have none. -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
- VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Jari Arkko
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Dave Crocker
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Mode… Stewart Bryant
- Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standa… Glen Zorn
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Glen Zorn
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Glen Zorn
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Barry Leiba
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Barry Leiba
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Dave Crocker
- Metadiscussion [Last Call: Modern Global Standard… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… SM
- Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: M… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Michael StJohns
- Re: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Cal… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Para… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards … Richard Shockey
- One sentence SM