Re: Transition

[Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>]

> The IETF was/is a task force of the
> IAB and has grown up under the IAB governance.  What I see is an
> anarchy has arisen in the ranks of the IETF task forces based on
> the arogance of success and now wishes to cast off the parent which
> tries to constrain it.  In fact, the constraint, in my view, should be
> even stronger in terms of procss control.  I see very little engineering
> process evident in the task forces, at least on the lists that I read.

There is some "arogance" (sic) here, but there is plenty to go around.
You need only look at the rather insulting "aloof review" model being
praised by one IAB member to get to sense of what I'm talking about.

There are certainly quality control problems that we must deal with.
History has shown that this is most effectively done at the working
group level with "senior" people contributing with an equal voice.
These people often get their way, not because of the titles bestowed on
them for past services, but because they make cogent arguments in terms of
the architectural and engineering decisions they favor.

It is fascinating to observe that as the Internet suite of protocols has
become more successful, the majority of the IAB membership have gone
into a making-pronouncements-without-really-participating mode.  Perhaps
this worked for Howard Hughes in his decline.  (The imagery here is
amusing, eh?)  Regardless, such tactics aren't working in today's
Internet community.

And this is precisely why I favor the Crocker/Malamud draft: because it
separates process review from technology review.  Perhaps it is time for
the ranks of the "aloof review" club to get some dirt back under their
fingernails.  Perhaps it is time that they rejoin the community.

/mtr