Ummm, when I saw
That's not quite the point. Both in an ad hoc group like Adminrest,
and in the IAB and IESG, it is entirely possible that in a discussion
of the real issues, something like the following would be said:
A: The real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job. B: No, it's Y, who has set impossible boundary conditions on X. C: I think it was Z's fault, when he/she hired X and Y. A: Anyway, X is overpaid. C: Have you any idea how much housing costs there? D: Let's focus. Is the problem these people, or is the contract with XYZ screwed up? [Alternatively: is the WG charter screwed up?]
I made that up, but it is the sort of things that have to be
discussed sometimes. If you can't keep such discussions confidential,
they won't happen, and the real issue will never be faced
(i.e. is X, Y, Z or the organizational setup to blame, and
what should be changed).
I immediately thought of http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/146, which attributes to Eleanor Roosevelt this thought:
"Great minds discuss great ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people."
I am gratified that the same e-mail contained this paragraph, just a little further on:
I won't reply in more detail to Margaret's note, except to say that if the confidentiality clauses she quotes are used *except* for the above sort of discussion, they're being misused IMHO.
If we have the habit of getting to D: quickly, we don't need to invoke confidentiality nearly as often as people who cycle on A:, B:, or C:...
As long as I'm typing, I'll add one minor point that I haven't seen raised yet.
"Discussions that take place in private don't start building broad consensus until they go public."
I tend to be pretty supportive of IETF leadership, and I take our organizational discussions pretty seriously. I serve on the General Directorate, and I participate in the IETF General Discussion list, NEWTRK, ICAR, SOLUTIONS, and IPR. I'm assuming that if I never heard of "Scenario C and Scenario O" before September 20 (first appearance on the IETF General Discussion list), most IETF participants didn't hear of it before then, either. When I have any clue that some thought is about to appear on the horizon, I do my best to prepare myself to be a supporter. In this case, I had no clue thoughts were coming.
If your idea is so good that people will leap on the bandwagon immediately, fine. Just allow time for flatfooted supporters to catch up. For example, I support every idea I've heard come out of PROTO, but I didn't know that anything was happening until we got to San Diego.
The people who will be agreeing with you could be saying "what a good idea!" instead of "what, a good idea?"
Confidentiality for salary discussion is unavoidable (although I belong to a denomination that posts every salary for comments), and confidentiality for consistent poor performance is unavoidable (even if you're a dictator, everyone knows that your evaluation has arrived when it's taped to the nose of a cruise missile). If we spend more than two hours per year under the cone of silence, that's unfortunate...
Spencer
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf