> Your ideas that the "IETF is a meritocracy" and that "I* opinions are > afforded special status" are to say the least worry me. If you start from a postion that one cannot trust the I*, or WG chairs, etc. (as a number of your recent postings seem to do), then yes, one can't help to be troubled. however, if your basic starting point is one of distrust, it's hard to imagine rules or process or some other management or oganizational structure that will actually work and also prevent abuse. If there is bad intent, very few rules will prevent bad actions. IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a willingness to speak up and challenge parties when there is evidence of bad decision making. In my experience, the vast majority of our leadership do try to do the right thing. And when confronted with having made a bad decision, there is usually a genuine effort to fix things and do the right thing. > How do those, I wonder, fit with what's written in the IETF mission > web page http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/ietf-mission.html? > Your slides on "Bringing new work to the IETF" presented at the Prague > meeting that I have just looked at today also seem to be in > contradiction to the IETF mission. Your idea that some people's > opinions are afforded more weight than others' is certainly not how the > consensus process works. Do smarter people hum louder or get to raise > both of their hands? What are you saying? If a respected security expert (one who has reviewed many documents, contributed significantly to WG efforts, etc.) comes to a WG and says "there is a problem here", but 5 WG members stand up and say "I disagree and don't see a problem", do you really expect the security expert's opinion to be given strictly equal weight and to just be overruled since 5 voices are greater than 1? > The idea that somehow the ADs and the IAB are above the rest of the > contributors is just wrong. They are not above the rest in the sense of having absolute power and having to answer to no one. Anyone is free to (and should) challenge their arguments and decisions when they don't appear to be sound. And clearly they have to be able to defend their positions and give concrete or "actionable" justifications. But to somehow think they are just "equals" would relegate them to just doing process, and taking away their ability to use judgement. I for one do not want to go there because it will almost certainly lead to bad outcomes because the process "rules" didn't allow for someone to just step and and say "no". Others have also said things I agree with (e.g., Ted and Jari especially). Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf