Steve Crocker wrote:
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
Wow. No. In fact, it completely misses what I said.
Given how thoroughly I parsed the problems with the contract language, this is
surprising.
You have apparently confused a diligent willingness to cite the realities of the
IETF's dynamic range of behavior, and history of unfiltered speech, with
criticism of it. And you have ignored the bulk of my comments, which were about
the inherent problems in the contract terms.
To repeat: What I said was that these are unreasonable contract terms.
They are unreasonable for any venue.
As for your own reaction to the overall thread, perhaps that accounts for your
reading of my note. By contrast, I've been impressed with the proportion of
serious postings. They have explored the topic in different and conflicting
ways, but they've been serious.
Early in the thread, I noted that contract terms which dictated that we must
dress in a business style (coats and ties for men, skirts for women) would be
just as unacceptable. All sorts of conditions that might be reasonable for
other groups are inappropriate for the IETF.
Contract terms which impose constraints that do not fit a group's culture and
operation are unreasonable. Contract terms which specify vague conditions are
unreasonable. Contract terms which specify open-ended liabilities are unreasonable.
Whether some aspect of the IETF might also be unreasonable isn't part of this
thread, IMO. We are what and who we are and it isn't going to change for one
meeting.
Nor am I suggesting that this aspect of the IETF needs to change. But then, I'm
always reticent to criticize the IETF...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf