Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?

[Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>]

For a moment, consider an alternate perspective.

At some point you just have to ask yourself "how much discussion is
enough".  Certainly we could have an open-ended process that continually
refined SNMPv2 until it was all things for all people.  However,
experience shows that this does not produce useful technology.

The original call for proposals went out in March of last year.  For a
six month period, people had a chance to put something together.  There
have been repeated opportunities for people to formulate proposals,
modifications, etc.  Some of this input has been productive.  Some has not.
The moral of the story is that talk is cheap, but workable technology is
not.

With respect to the current situation, the process and time pressures
have not squashed Chuck's proposals.  They have been on the table for
over a month.  The problem is that most people can not even understand
his proposals (and I wonder how many could even begin to implement
them).  I do understand them and I will tell you that from my admittedly
biased--yet informed--position, they have little chance of resulting in
fielded, interoperable implementations.  I've already explained why I
think Chuck is engaging in this disruptive behavior, and you might
disagree with my analysis.  However, it is a plain fact that his
proposal has no constituency, nor does it have the force of
interoperable implementation behind them.  As such, the resolution of a
situation is a foregone conclusion.

/mtr