On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:08:08PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >>This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's > >>glitch > >>shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules. > > > > > >Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every > >contingency. > > > > > >Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles > >and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might > >ever occur. > > I don't think that is inconsistent with the need for precision. It's > ambiguity that leads to problems - for example, ambiguity about who > resolves problems during the formation of NomCom. methinks there is a bit of confusion here. brian seems to be arguing for a (nearly) completely objective state ... (which, imho, brings nearly byzantine buraucracy as a "feature") and dave is making the argument that subjective state is a viable alternative. and one can be precise in either state. to my memory, one could segment the IETF at about the century mark along these lines: 20th century :: subjective/precise 21st century :: objective/ambigious and the second state (21st century) is ambigious precisely because there is not enough bureaucracy to codify every contingency. if this is a rational characterisation, i know which state i'd rather work in. --bill > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf