Re: Transition

Dennis Perry <perry@mcl.unisys.com> Thu, 12 November 1992 12:32 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03031; 12 Nov 92 7:32 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03021; 12 Nov 92 7:32 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06020; 12 Nov 92 7:33 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03016; 12 Nov 92 7:32 EST
Received: from kauai.mcl.unisys.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06015; 12 Nov 92 7:33 EST
Received: by kauai.MCL.Unisys.COM (4.1/mls/3.2) id AA26648; Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:29:22 EST
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:29:22 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dennis Perry <perry@mcl.unisys.com>
Message-Id: <9211121229.AA26648@kauai.MCL.Unisys.COM>
To: perry@mcl.unisys.com, poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Transition
Cc: Stef=poised@nma.com, crocker@tis.com

Marshall, I agree with you about the participation of the IAB.  By the
way, for you history buffs, this has been a long standing problem with
the IAB.  I remember people complaining more than 6 years ago about how
long it took to get things approved by the IAB, and this was when it was
a fairly young organization.

I have no particular feeling for the Crocker/Malamud draft, since I dont
think the organizational model is necessarily broken - problems in 
performance, perhaps!  But, I am more concerned with the process of how
the IETF does its work of "engineering."  I think that if this problem
were also attacked, then we might have a chance of fixing what appears
to be an organizational issue.  Fixing an organization and leaving the
process the same will not solve the problem that I think we are seeing.
In fact, any organization will work, some might work better than others,
but organizational issues will not in general provide solutions to the
type of problem that I think is at the root of the issue.

dennis