Andy Bierman wrote:
> I don't think a formal WG process is needed to determine that
> the strongest consensus exists for the approach currently outlined
> in the charter. The 15 people on the design team represented
> a wide cross section of those actually interested in this work.
> I am among the 10 - 15 people who were not involved in the design team,
> but agree with the charter. That seems like a lot of consensus
> for this technical approach.
>
>
There seems to be a repeating pattern here where a large cross section
of interested people manage to either mostly hash out their differences
or are committed to grin and bear whatever the consensus is only to
be thwarted by a small set of (self) appointed Internet Earls with little
or no stake in the game. The IETF should be fostering getting that
upfront ego-deflation, etc, done ahead of working group formation,
IMO, as it makes for functional rather than dysfunctional working
groups. But as it stands right now, those Internet Earls pretty much
have veto power through extremely vague "We are not pleased"
proclamations which the would-be working group has no means
of clearing except for throwing open the entire can of worms again
(and again and again). This really sucks and is extremely demoralizing to
those who have invested more than a reasonable amount of time
on the work. What's even worse is that all the exercise does is create
delay since there was nothing actionable about the Proclamation in
the first place.
Mike, knitting
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf