Too many changes?

Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com> Mon, 09 November 1992 16:35 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17856; 9 Nov 92 11:35 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17847; 9 Nov 92 11:35 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29891; 9 Nov 92 11:36 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17840; 9 Nov 92 11:35 EST
Received: from atlas.xylogics.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29881; 9 Nov 92 11:36 EST
Received: by atlas.xylogics.com id AA31231 (5.65c/UK-2.1-921001); Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:39:22 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Gary Scott Malkin <gmalkin@xylogics.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 11:39:22 -0500
Message-Id: <31231.199211091639@atlas.xylogics.com>
To: poised@nri.reston.va.us
Subject: Too many changes?

I realize this may be an unpopular view to some people, but I must
say that I'm getting nervous as I read all of the proposals for
wholesale change within the ISOC/IETF hierarchy.  As I recall, the
original idea was to propose some changes which would fix the
problems (real and perceived).  I don't believe the original idea
was to start all over again.

I would like to point out that the system for the "governing" of the
IETF has evolved over the years into a system which works quite well.
Nobody would say the system was perfect, but no system ever is.
However, evolution invariably produces a healthier, stronger system
than revolution.  The proposals I've seen lately are definitely
revolutionary, not evolutionary.  This is not to say that some are the
proposals aren't well though out.  It's possible that they might work
better then what we have now.  However, it's also possible that
something was missed which might make things much worse than they are
now.  In point of fact, most of the proposals strike me as either
bureaucratic or democratic, neither of which appeals to me.

Let's consider the reason for the creation of the poised effort.  It's
because the IAB made a bad decision.  It was pointed out that the IAB
had made several bad decisions which formed a pattern which some people
found distressing.  Nobody has ever mentioned (as far as I know) that
the IAB has made hundreds, if not thousands, of good decisions.  Nobody
ever thinks to congratulate them for the good things they do, but the IAB
sure gets stomped on when they make a mistake.  Sometimes I wonder why
volunteers would put up with it.

I would like to suggest that we spend a little more time trying to fix the
existing problems with minor changes (as we have done so successfully for
so many years) before we try to start all over again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Malkin                         Humankind asks: "Why are we here?"
(617) 272-8140                      Earth responds: "PLASTIC, morons."