Re: improving WG operation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



  > But if you aren't interested, why are you here?  What's your interest? I
  > don't understand your point.  Are you here to convince the rest of us that
  > the IETF is irrelevant?

Absolutely not.  Nearly the opposite.  I hope that if you look back at
some of my other messages in this thread that's clear.

  >> You're complaining that some application-layer stuff like IM
  >> isn't as orderly as you'd like.

  > Disorder isn't good for the users, either. Its not just a personal
  > view of orderliness. And it isn't good for the market to have such
  > unnecessary and gratuitous disorder. That's why standards of any
  > form exist.

I'm not so sure IETF can help user's other than by producing very
good, easily accessed documents with available reference
implementations.  An endorsement/trust-based system for calling
attention to good standards seems like all you've ultimately got --
why not institutionalize *that*?  Why *isn't* the rest of the
governance simply noise?  Why *isn't* the rest of the governance
simply a game a professional organization has agreed to play that will
ultimately turn it into just another consortium?  Isn't the
rule-mongering just a very indirect attempt to find rules that
coincidentally create the effects an endorsement/trust system would
render in a more naked form?  What's the "value add" of anything beyond 
an endorsement/trust system?  My answers to those questions are clear
and that's why I say: strike while the iron is hot -- while there are
still recognizable names who roughly essentially deserve trust?


-t

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]