-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: >>> The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically >>> astute people and egocentric fools. >> >> >> Ditto for the ADs themselves. >> >>> Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who >>> which people are in which category. >> >> >> On both counts. > > yes, and yes. But there are far fewer egocentric fools in IESG than > among those disagreeing with IESG. Only because the IESG is a smaller set, IMO. > The real trick for IESG is to pay due attention to valid comments > without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but otherwise > intelligent fools. Ditto for the IETF paying attention to ADs, IMO. >> nor are [ADs] immune from favoring one of a number of equally >> valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures >> (e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs). > > NAT vs. non-NAT are not equally valid, by any stretch of the > imagination. While I agree, that hasn't been the position of the ADs, or the IETF as a whole over time. ... > The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices - like > the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is essential for > doing good engineering, and for reviewing others' engineering work. Which is why I am suspicious of how the ADs endorsed NATs for political (IMO) reasons when they first came out, and how we were encouraged to support them where possible, even when they violated the basic tenets of the Internet architecture expressed by existing Internet Standard docs. The point here isn't NATs; it's that whether something is an architectural, correctness, corporate, or personal rant is a matter of perspective in many cases. >> It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except >> the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly >> not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. - >> although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an >> alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have >> the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply. > > ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM. - From a self-selected set of those who filled out applications - based on a filter of hurdles. ... >> And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at >> meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR >> positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case >> to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call. >> >> If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't >> have a unique right to overrides. > > ADs don't have a "right" to override anything. They are, however, > entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the > organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened people > to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting > people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting, and sometimes > incompetent statements on behalf of the organization. So we have a smaller set entrusted to do the same? The setsize isn't the issue; it's the imbalance of control. > The latter kind of organization would be useless, and its imprimatur > would carry negative weight, because only the incompetent would work > there. > > Keith > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCemHdE5f5cImnZrsRAinpAJ9N+mNBywIZQUOIxSezTB3QecbyvQCdHXnQ zH20m28ff0wJjUHRas+p7WY= =SKuy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf