> From: John C Klensin > Two additions to Brian's comment, with which I agree... > > (1) The type of discussions he describes are especially > important in situations in which an alternative is to try to > make large structural or procedural changes in order to solve > problems with personalities. Such changes almost never succeed > if the relevant personalities are still in place, and they can > add serious additional friction to the process while solving > problems that don't exist and not solving those that do. Gordian Knots are hard unless you are a mythic hero. It sounds better deal first with the personality problem and then fix the structural problem. I think conflating the two even in private is bound to lead to serious errors and distortions in the procedural repairs. But sometimes that's impossible and you can't cut the knot. I trust this is not directly relevant to the reorganization stuff. > Perhaps I'm just getting too old, but while I think IETF > benefits from clear discussions in frank language, I don't think > the nit-picking, out of context, abuse, especially that which is > based on long-ago comments, benefits anyone. Yes, but much of that comes from letting everyone have a say as opoosed to letting everyone see what is said. I have big problems mustering any interest in whether the IETF is incorporated in Elbonia or whatever the reorganization is really about, but doing things in secret is always expensive. Sometimes the costs of secrecy are less than the alternatives, but they always exist. In this case, I'm now convinced that the reorganization stuff is less boring than I assumed. I still prefer to let you and others deal with it in private than to read those minutes. But please see those costs. Vernon Schryver vjs@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf