Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The response below misrepresents the situation completely. Henrik was working on the new RFC tooling for the HTML format. From what I see, most participants approve of what they see as improvements.
As usual, you misunderstand my points completely. And, I'm afraid that is your problem. As I wrote: > Those incidents should be caused by people who want to change > perfectly working situations toward worst possible situations, > because they want to say that they have performed some work. "perfectly working situations" mean tools managed by Henrik, which is replaced by layers of committees, which is the worst possible way to perform real works, as you can see recent gotcha on ftp service by IETF.
The issue that I see pervasively in IETF is a system in which people have authority but not accountability.
That is certainly a problem to rely on layers of committees but is a minor problem. If members of a committee refuse to be responsible to their wrong decisions, person who organized the committee should be accused.
So people insist on being the one to make a decision that they can never take because there is no clear indication of what participants want.
Wrong. As most users do not know what they need, it is wrong to modify tools based on what users want. Instead, real experts know what users needs. It is sometimes (or, often) against expressed intentions of users. That's how good tools have been developed. For example, iPhone was developed by Steve Jobs before users wanted it. However, collective stupidity of committees just conclude that their, often wrong, ideas on what users want are what are necessary for users, which is the problem of current IETF. Masataka Ohta
