----- Original Message ----- From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@xxxxxxx> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>; <> Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: Re: Crisis of Faith - was Re: Adjusting the Nomcom process > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:44:12AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: > > BRIAN - you have totally missed the point - No offense meant, but > > your personal word nor any other IETF/IESG staff member is what is not to > > be relied on - whether you are telling the truth or not is irrelevant - the > > process has a hole in it large enough to drive a Mack truck through. > > Todd, it's clear you don't have any faith in anyone on the IESG Why should I - this is a standards process not a Church or an organized religion. Faith is what you put into processes and things unknown and that IS NOT what the IETF's Standards Process is/are supposed to be. > (they > aren't "staff", by the way, they are volunteers), No Ted - they are formally appointed "staff members" in formally defined roles with defined standing. The fact that they were given a vote also gave them a liability as well - I bet Jorge and the other lawyers ever told you that eh? As to them being compensated staff - they are exactly that. They are compensated for their standing "by a tremendous value to their professional careers" and they accept that value in lieu of formal compensation, so although they are not paid formally, they are exactly that - compensated staff. But Ted - you keep dancing around language to try and keep the IESG from being responsible - its what you folks do best as far as I can tell. > but at the same > time, the vast majority of those who have spoken on this thread have > clearly expressed that they believe that all concerned were acting in > good faith, and that no harm was done. Who cares what the vast majority of people here think This list has 30 or 40 members of the IETF talking and that is it. If that constitutes a VAST MAJORITY of anything within the IETF... well I am betting the rest of the list gets the point. > > You may not believe that, but as a suggestion, your constant and > strident attacks quite frankly weaken your own credibility. So then you are saying that the right way to address the IEWSG is to kiss its *ss and that this is the way to get things done? > So if you > do have a particular goal of changing how the IETF works, being a bit > more thoughtful about suggesting changes will tend to probably serve > your goals better than your current style of attacking people like > Brian and other IESG members. Ted - you take an attack on the system as an attack against you personally or Brian and that documents the the issues herein and your own gross incompetence to stand in any role where you are makling decisions about others IP Initiatives. Bluntly Ted - this IETF needs a total overhaul and you and the the rest of the IESG who are desparately trying to protect their Jobs need to be shown the door IMHO. Sorry but its the histrory of your (the IESG's) gross screw-ups. A blanket history of approving process after process and implementing it without bothering to get any of the Sponsor's legal agreements. You crack me up... this is basic organizational dynamics 101 and any first year OR student could see the flaws here. > > Regards, > > - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf