For what it is worth my takehome from the Montreal meeting was that there was genuine desire for change but no recognition of consensus on a particular way forward. One of the reasons that there is no recognition of consensus on a way forward is that we did not learn the nature of the objections from the IESG or even who was making it. In other words precisely the type of opaque decision making processes that were being criticized. It is a FACT that the IETF produces a minute number of actual 100% standards each year. You are the one indulging in handwaving here, not me. It is a FACT that when I am asked to propose venues for standards activities the IETF is currently a much harder sell than it should be. Stop trying to shoot the messenger here. I want to be in a position where I can suggest bringing work to the IETF in a pre-standards multi-party meeting and not having people laugh or groan. I certainly do not recommend IETF in all circumstances, nor do I recommend against IETF in every case. My problem is that I cannot recommend IETF in as many situations as I would like. The two principle issues being the lack of standards recognition (pushback: can't we just do an informational RFC) and the large dose of Not Invented Here. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:34 AM > To: Eliot Lear > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about > mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process] > > Eliot Lear wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > >>>We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp > the nettle > >>>and align theory with reality. > >> > >>It was clear in Montreal that there is no community > consensus to spend > >>effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now. > > > > > > I'm sorry, Brian, but this answer is truly unacceptable. > Reality is > > that our 3 step process is not functioning as documented. > We thought > > we were fixing it in NEWTRK, but you shut down that group. Please > > tell me and the rest of the community what path you expect > to correct > > the error. If you don't have a proposal I will have one of my own. > > I'm not sure that I can say it more clearly than I did the first time. > I do not believe there is enough interest in this problem in > the community to invest effort in fixing it. That is quite > distinct from whether you, I or a number of other individuals > believe it needs fixing. > > I think you weren't in Montreal. You might want to check the > plenary minutes at > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/plenaryw.html > or listen to the audio at > ftp://limestone.uoregon.edu/pub/videolab/media/ietf66/ietf66-c h5-wed-plenary.mp3 > > If you can build a strong constituency for a given proposal, > that might change things. But over the last few years, I > haven't seen more than a few people supporting any given > proposal, including ones that I've made, and that doesn't cut > it for something that affects every single WG. > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf