Re: S stands for Steering [Re: Should the IESG rule or not?]

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

 



Brian,

Let me add three observations to Ken's rather interesting tabulation (without having read all of the traffic since then -- if someone else has said this, I apologize)...

--On Friday, July 01, 2005 1:02 AM -0400 Ken Carlberg <carlberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Brian E Carpenter

I'm supposed to be on vacation so this will be brief, but I
don't  think that your assertion about what "the community"
has said is  backed up by postings from a sufficient number
of people to be a  community view.  Most people in the
community haven't posted one way  or the other. I haven't
counted, but in the recent discussions about  the hop by hop
option, I've seen a number of messages agreeing with  the
IESG's decision, contrasted with a large number of critical
postings from just a few people.

My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect.
in taking the position that respondents can be classified as
either:  a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b)
dissatisfied or  uncomfortable with the decision, or c) could
not be clearly  determined by the content of their response, I
came up with the  following list.

Dissatisfied         Satisfied               Other
------------         ---------               -----
Robert Elz           Thomas Narten	        Barbara Roseman
John Leslie	         Sam Hartman            Yakov Rekhter
Ken Carlberg         Bob Hinden             Scott Brim
Ralph Droms	         Brian Carpenter        Spencer Dawkins
Steve Silverman      Allison Mankin	        Thomas Hruska
Jefsey Morfin        Harald Alvestrand      Randy Presuhn
John Klensin         Keith Moore            Scott Bradner
Nick Staff	         Bill Sommerfeld
Lawrence Roberts	   Eliot Lear
Vint Cerf	         Joel Halpern
Dave Crocker         Margaret Wasserman
Ned Freed	         Jeffrey Hutzelman
Grenville Armitage
Hans Kruse

I listed names so that people could object to my
interpretation, and I'm sure I made a mistake or two.  But at
best, it seems the reaction is split, and not to be viewed as
objections coming from simply a few but persistant people.

(i) Of the people in the left-hand column, there are at least a few who believe either that the proposed protocol is a dubious idea or even that the registration request should, in the last analysis, be rejected. Their objection is to the process the IESG followed, the assumptions about authority the IESG made in following it, and/or the way in which the IESG explained its decision. In that regard, there may be some overlap with some members of the "other" group: some of the "other" group might reasonable be classified with the "dissatisfied" or vice versa. Certainly few of the "others" are completely happy at this point.

(ii) It is interesting to note that there are present or former ADs in all three groups, but that, of the 12 people in the "satisfied" group, fully half are current, or immediately past, ADs. By contrast, there are zero people in either of the other two lists who are now ADs or who have served as ADs since March 2003. One could probably interpret that factoid in several ways, but one cannot help but notice that, if one excluded IESG members defending either a recent IESG action or general IESG perceptions of its role from the second group, it would be the shortest of the three lists.

(iii) By my rough and subjective count (I, too, am supposedly on vacation and hence suffering from impeded connectivity), the "few people" making a "large number of postings" are distributed among the first two groups, with neither group having a monopoly on that particular distinction.

      john


_______________________________________________

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]