[Pesci-discuss] Finding and nurturing the bright sparks of genius

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

The best work in the IETF (IMH and personal O) comes from recognition of 
a problem blended with the kernel of an idea for a solution.
Within those solutions, progress is made by individuals or small design 
teams coming up with ideas that advance the work.

The original ideas hardly ever stem from the larger consensus.  The 
virtue of the wg and the larger IETF, at their best, is to recognize the 
better mousetrap for what it is, to support it and  to converge round it.

The IAB and the IESG are supposed to be architecturally, technically and 
managerially aware of the problem space in which we are working.  They 
need to make the IETF and the wider world aware of this week's problems 
and promote the solutions we offer, but except as individuals they are 
unlikely to come up with the sparks of inventive genius that start us on 
the path to solutions.

What they should be doing is looking in the right places for those 
sparks of genius and then nuturing and fanning the flames into a real 
better mousetrap solution which can achieve technical excellence, market 
effectiveness and IETF consensus.  The IESG has to *steer* these small 
sparks into enormous bonfires that will burn up the problems (got a bit 
carried away with the metaphor there).

[Aside: Maybe there is a principle in there that we didn't write down?]

To my mind this applies just as much to our process as to the technical 
work.

The discussion over the last couple of weeks has spent far too much time 
worrying whether what PESCI is doing is subverting the IETF aethos, 
rather than seeing it as a way to find out if there are any sparks of 
genius out there to be nurtured. 

The discussion to date has neither spent a lot of time reviewing the 
principles proposed (with one or two honorable exceptions) nor have we 
seen any solutions proposed.

If we agree that there is some sort of  problem, it seems to me that 
almost any means is legitimate as a way to find the kernel of a 
solution.  If the current draft does revisit the ground covered by 
'problem' maybe it will trigger the Eureka moment in somebody for some 
part of a perceived problem and they (and maybe some of their 
colleagues) can come up with a strawman that we can discuss.  Until we 
have a strawman, the discussion is likely to remain unfocussed and 
procedural rather than solutional as it has done for the last couple of 
years

So: any or all of you, read what the draft says, please.   Then: do you 
believe there is a problem?  If so do you have a bright idea? Then come 
and propose it.  Only then are we likely to make progress and it will be 
up to the community and the IESG to nurture and guide it (not 
necessarily work it).  Only if this proposal is imposed without 
achieving community (rough) consensus is the IETF ethos subverted.







_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss