Brian, > > To date, we treat most of the IETF process as uinsg free resources. .... > To be blunt, I believe this is a direct consequence of our open door, > individual participation ethic. If you want firm resource commitments, > you have to ask corporations and other organizations, not individuals, > to make the commitment. You could not be more wrong. The open door policy might call for some creativity in resource management, but it in no way guarantees that we are unable to manage our aggregate resources. I made a particular point that I believe you entirely missed. It is fundamental and it is really quite simple. Embrace it, and quite a bit of IETF management becomes pretty simple. Ignore it and we are pretty likely to have the kind of chaos and erratic behavior that dominates the IETF today. The point is about the real meaning of rough consensus. Rough consensus is about a strongly dominant constituency in favor of something. If there is a strongly dominant constituency in favor of something, then that something gets done. And, by the way, it gets done in a timely fashion or else the constituency evaporates. Require that an effort begin with -- and continue to demonstrate -- a serious constituency in terms of numbers and activity, and most of our problems disappear. Ignore that requirement and we are, instead, we are left with congestion, individual idealism and vetoes... and a belief that there is nothing we can do about it. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf