Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Harald Alvestrand<harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Voting has all kinds of issues.
Precisely the type of vague, non reason that I was complaining about.
Consider the last ten years of yelling to be included by reference.
I like the current Nomcom process because it depends on 2 things:
- A pool of qualified volunteers
- Luck in picking a nomcom that behaves sensibly (for whatever that means to
you)
Given that luck is involved, many of the possible attacks that people could
mount in order to gain more IETF influence won't happen - simply because
they have a significant chance of failure. Trying, failing, and being
detected as having tried, would be harmful to the group that tried it.
The last time I was aware of anything like that happening in any
standards group was when XrML was killed in OASIS, but the issue there
was people opposed to DRM, not a company driven thing.
Where companies want to tilt the playing field they usually have to
start the organization to succeed. Or get in early like the XRI folk
did with OpenID. And fat lot of good it did them.
As a former corporate rep, I can assure you that there is precisely
zero value in gaining the imprimatur of the IETF (or OASIS or W3C for
that matter) if you short circuit the process. The point of standards
participation is to get buy in from other parties you need to build
common infrastructure.
Sure. That's why Microsoft spent so much resource (and credibility)
making sure the OOXML vote went through; they did not gain anything of
value.
Or perhaps the value proposition is different for ISO than for the IETF.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf