[Pesci-discuss] iesg and newtrk

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> writes:

    John> --Margaret wrote, in part:
    John> Now, let's compare that to what has happened to several
    John> process proposals recently.  A significant fraction of the
    John> IESG lines up, either at microphones or on mailing lists,
    John> and delivers a message that amounts to "can't work, won't
    John> work, and, even if it could work, we wouldn't support it
    John> because it would change the way we do things" (I know I'm
    John> exaggerating a bit, but only a bit).  While, unlike Pekka, I
    John> considered the Pesci BOF discussion mostly constructive, I
    John> have un-fond memories of newtrk sessions in which IESG
    John> members have lined up to make speeches, controlling the
    John> microphone sufficiently in practice to squeeze out any
    John> ideas.  The amount of constructive dialogue, with
    John> suggestions coming from the IESG members stating the
    John> objections has been, well, minimal.

No, John, your exaggerating a lot more than just a bit.  This is the
sort of response that seriously causes me to question whether being on
the IESG is a job worth doing.  Just because you don't like an
objection or because an objection is not actionable does not mean the
objection is not constructive.

I don't know what discussions you are talking about, but it seemed to
me from the end of the Paris newtrk session that the there were
several directions that both IESG and non-IESG members of the room
could end up living with.  In my mind that counts as constructive; I'm
sorry you demand more.

Finally, I'd argue that the particular style of message you are using
here is particularly destructive.  You have specific discussions in
mind; you don't even bother to cite them in order to give people a
chance to evaluate whether you have a point or are just using
emotionally charged language as a form of assertion.  Also, by
avoiding specifics, you prevent people from actually considering real
data and either improving the way they approach problems or giving
constructive suggestions to others.

If this is the best level of discourse we can find together, then I
personally have no interest in another two years of process hell.  The
IESg cannot be the enemy; the people proposing change cannot be the
enemy.  If we can't get past the need to take sides and have enemies,
we cannot succeed.

--Sam

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss