Re: I'm not the microphone police, but ...

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

 



At 14:16 03/08/2005, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I am sure large corporations would be more careful at sending their high-order IQ if they known that their inputs will tagged with the company name.

What a wonderful world it would be, if that were true...

I'm pretty sure that less than 0.001 percent of the management teams at my IETF sponsors since 1996 had any idea that I was even ATTENDING the IETF, and our process documents point out repeatedly that it's not necessary to actually attend IETF face-to-face meetings in order to participate in the IETF.

My current sponsor is quite clear that I am, and will be, participating in the IETF, but that's not true for most of the people I talk to on IETF mailing lists. It's quite possible to be an excellent document editor, and probably even a reasonable working group chair, with very minimal sponsor awareness. I've paid my own way to IETFs twice, both times as WG/BOF chairs, and I know that others have paid their own way many more times than I have.

If an employee doesn't fill out a travel authorization to attend the face to face meetings, does anyone on the management team even hear this tree fall?

Spencer,
I am afraid we are not on the same wavelength. We all did what you say. But there is a time when you set up your priority budget. Attending the IETF is the cost of a test server I need to oppose running tested code to people using the IETF against our non-profit R&D for their own profit. I would have no problem with their agenda, if the simple disclosing of their roots made heir legitimate commercial relations known and obvious to all, leading the community to be less impressed by the size of their Draft and more attentive to its real interest, for who.

I am considering the seldom cases which counts. Where Sponsors are really able to use the IETF, and the IANA, as a tool to protect their own interests, biasing the Internet standard process. In this case the strategy is not managed by a sponsor but through a consortium or a de facto alliance. The management is informed and is in the lead. I think it is not often (I know directly only three cases), but it is where the real danger is: because the Internet architecture is not separately discussed. So, it may be decided for long through small committing details (I know from experience). This is the case where RFC 3869 describes the Internet R&D financing by commercial interests: controlling that small committing detail is of key importance before investing. Then the investment will in turn commit the internet to the concerned interests. In the three cases I refered to one is a failure, one is important but less than it could have been, the last one is just being carried.

In these cases you have two or three geeks/managers involving themselves, to show who is the boss when needed. Then you have well educated specialised set of people, to author Drafts, co-Chair the WG, assume complementary Draft preparation, manage the IANA registry, etc. Then you have standard Members to sustain the "consensus" (by exhaustion) and to erode opposition to that end. The game is not to produce the best document for all, but to "win" against "competition's" propositions. Leading to the fun of seeing an intended BCP (as a successor to an RFC also dealing with Internet standard process issues) to invent a standard track proposition forbidding existing practices and running code.

I submit that publishing the resume of all the participants and the source of their IETF funding would help everyone understand these cases and would reduce them to welcome (but probably less staffed and funded) standard propositions. Commercial money cannot be dealt with the same as public money, as non-profit money, as personal money. Or you unbalance the whole process.

jfc




_______________________________________________

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]