> However, I don't see delay > at this point in time assisting our cause. In fact, the > general membership of the IETF (whatever that means) has very > few lawyers, and probably very few MBAs. One would have to > wait a LONG time for community consensus. 1. Nothing about the reorganization is going to make IETF standards be more useful or be produced significantly more quickly. Hence, reorganization has nothing to do with the really serious threats to IETF long-term survival. 2. The current sense of crisis has mostly come from a loss of revenue. Nothing about the reorganization will necessarily fix that. 3. The rest of the sense of crisis is due to interaction problems between some people in IETF leadership and some people in the organizations that the IETF uses for services. Nothing in the reorganization is certain to improve any of that, especially since we do not have precise statements of work for them. (There is a rather mystical sense that the reorganization will fix these issues, but in fact nothing in the simplistic, superficial way that we are proceeding should give us any sense that that improvement is likely. Quite the opposite.) 4. Most of the reorganization process has been pursued with partial statements, incomplete plans, and assertions of urgency. It certainly has not been conducted in a way that attended to concerns as they were raised. Quite the opposite. So the view that "delay" will not assist us amounts to a statement that we should not worry about the considerable range of serious problems in how we have been pursuing organization, or with our community ignorance about what we are doing, but we should charge ahead (blindly) just to get it over with. I am trying to imagine any sort of serious protocol development process that used that sort of logic and then had acceptance and/or success. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker@... brandenburg.com _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf