Harald, Since I finally got around to posting my "what was that problem anyway" note, it is probably time for me to come back and try to question some of your assumptions, since I'm not sure I agree completely with all of them. More important, the logic on which your definitions are constructed appears to be badly flawed. Since poor definitions and logic can lead to confused thinking, some careful analysis may be in order. --On Thursday, 09 September, 2004 12:21 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I thought it would make sense for me to mention a few things I > have regarded as "obvious" in this discussion - just to make > sure nobody comes along later and says "you can't draw a > conclusion based on that - while I agree with you, there might > be others who don't" or something like that. > Clarity is good. > > It is very hard to state these things in a way where nobody > can quibble with the formulations, but I will try anyway. > 1 - The IETF exists, and it is the IETF community. > > Even though we have carefully avoided defining its boundaries, > I believe that we all believe that the IETF exists. And it's > obvious that if the people who do the technical work leave, > the IETF is nothing. > So the IETF is the community. This logic doesn't follow. Restated as a logical proposition, you have just said { The people who do the technical work } are a necessary condition for { a meaningful (i.e., "not nothing") IETF } therefore { the IETF } == { the IETF community } So, you have concluded that a term that you (still) haven't defined is equivalent to another term based an a sufficiency condition on what appears to be a subset (the "not nothing" one) of the second term. Now, logic may have undergone significant advances since I took that course a few centuries ago (at least it feels like that), but I don't think that flies. In more practical terms, while I agree that the people who do the technical work are a necessary condition for the IETF being meaningful, we certainly have people around who participate in the IETF, are eligible to serve on Nomcoms, may even post to mailing lists, etc., but who do no observable technical work at all. If your intent is to say { the people who do the technical work } == { the IETF } == { the IETF community } then all of those no-technical-work active participants are excluded from the IETF community. I don't think you mean that. And, if you do, I suggest that the Nomcom selection procedure model falls apart, as do several other things. It is not an accident that we often make the distinction between "IETF [technical] contributors" and "IETF participants". Even if both of those categories are a bit fuzzy, we understand that they are different. More broadly, we are, or pretend to be, in the business of producing standards (and other things) to make the Internet work better. Either * those standards have users and applications, and we care enough about those enough to consider the people and organizations who make the evaluation and practical applicability decisions part of our community (at least for some purposes), or * we are in serious danger of turning into a community of navel-gazers for which the main criterion for IETF success is that we are all happily amusing ourselves. While it is certainly possible to believe in the latter, happy amusement, definition after observing some of what goes on in the IETF, I think (and hope) few of us actually believe it. Moreover, some of that extended community is the source of the economic and support resources for making the IETF go. And one might go so far as to say that, without those resources, the IETF would rapidly become "nothing", i.e., that they are also a necessary condition. > 2 - The IETF leadership is the IESG and IAB. > > Some jobs are clearly given to the IESG in our documents; > other jobs are clearly given to the IAB. Some jobs are not > mentioned at all. > As part of the process of change, the community may select > other people or create new bodies for other types of > leadership. > And the IAB and IESG has to be in a continuing dialogue with > the community in order to figure out what the right things to > do are. > But there is at present no other leadership function selected > by the community. Again, your principles are correct, but your syllogisms break down: (i) If we accept your narrow definition of "the community" (see above), then the IAB and IESG are selected by something else than "the community" (ii) The statement that there is "no other leadership function selected by the community" does not imply that the "IETF leadership is the IESG and IAB". For example, whether it is working well or not, there is a case to be made that the Secretariat has a leadership role in the community. (iii) We also have documents that assign "jobs" to the Nomcom and its Chair, to WG Chairs, to the IANA and the RFC Editor, and to others. If the criteria for "leadership" is that there are jobs given to people or organizations, then those are "leadership" too. I would add directorate members, document authors and editors, and many others to that list too. (iv) More important that any of the three points above, and leading directly to (3), below, the observation that the IAB and IESG are "the leadership", even if accepted as true, does not imply that those bodies have any authority not explicitly granted to them by the community in specific authorizing documents, or the logical consequences of such organization. Put in more traditional IETF terms, the section of members of the IESG and IAB does not endow either the individual members or the bodies as a whole with Royal Authority. "No Kings" is not a conditional statement; nowhere does it say "No Kings except when selected to serve on the IAB or IESG". (v) And, finally, "leadership" is, and always has been, a concept that has as much to do with influence as with authority. If you don't believe that there are leaders in the community who are not the IESG or IAB, your definition of "leadership" is a bit unusual. Probably we can do better. > 3 - The community has accepted the problem description and > principles laid out in RFC 3716. > > The most common reaction I have had from people who have read > RFC 3716 is "it's obvious, now that you say it". And it would > be hard for anyone who reads the IETF list or the > IETF-announce list, or the most recent plenaries, to be > completely unaware of its existence, or that we are basing > further work on its conclusions. > So - if there was significant disagreement with its > conclusions - I'd have expected to hear that before now. Like Bernard and yourself, I participated in drawing 3716 together. And I agreed with it at the time and _in general_ still do. But I believe that the direction in which it has taken us --either because we didn't understand some of the issues before we started to design and implement, because we just got some things wrong at the detail level, or because it has been interpreted in ways more specific than we intended-- calls some of its "problem description" and/or "principles" into question. More important, we have one, and only one, established way for the community (see above) to "accept" something, and that involves a Last Call and a formal IESG determination. If we can publish an Informational RFC whose existence is arguably well-known in the community, and then interpret the absence of "significant disagreement" as an indication of community acceptance and assent, then we had best start treating RFCs 1149 and 2549 as important parts of the protocol suite. > As I said - I *think* these things are fairly obvious. But it > might still be reasonable to check that other people agree. Be careful what you wish for... :-( best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf