On Tue, 10 May 2005, Tom Lord wrote: > > > 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. The IETF doesn't produce documents that are meant to be accessible to users. Nor does it produce reference implementations. IETF documents are meant to be accessible to engineers and operators, creating and running interoperable services of various types. One and possibly two implementations are usually required for a standard to be acceptable. The point of this is to require that specifications be both implementable and complete. > An endorsement/trust-based system for calling attention to good > standards seems like all you've ultimately got -- why not > institutionalize *that*? The trust-based system we have has a track record of obtaining good specifications. We have institutionalized that, vaguely though it might be. This doesn't mean this process can't be improved, nor that it shouldn't be critically examined. But I don't see that this has anything to do with calling attention to good standards. The IETF has no marketing or promotion department to call attention to anything it does. It is all through word of mouth and the interaction with participants. I don't think such a department is necessary. > 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? I'd offer one point: Name recognition has nothing to do with trust. In the past few years, we've seen some very recognizable and previously highly trusted names turn out to be untrustworthy in a number fields, endeavors, and organizations. Whether someone is still trustworthy is also something that needs to be critically examined now and again. An organization's trust assets only remain assets if they remain trustworthy. Trusted staff isn't the only thing going for the IETF, but it is a critical component. But untrustworthy staff can be replaced without damage so long as they are replaced promptly. It is usually delay in replacement of trusted staff that creates the most damage for organizations that depend on trust. So far as "striking while the iron is hot", well, "urgency" is usually and historically a sign of weak technical arguments that won't hold up to careful and critical scrutiny. There is nothing here that needs attention so urgently we can't analyze the problem and the proposed solutions. So far as I am aware, in _every_ case where "urgency" was cited as a reason for foregoing analysis, it has been found both that there wasn't any urgency, and that the proposal was seriously flawed. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf