On 4/8/2010 10:22 PM, Dean Willis wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote: > >> Hi Fred, > >> Would you really expect me not to throw my weight (assuming there were >> one) behind the proposal I fought teeth and claws before—and damage my >> relationship with my new employer during the first days on the job? > > Yep. If you did, most of the people I know around the IETF would never > trust you again. Instead, we'd expect you to convert your new employer > to your old way of thinking. > > Either they're hiring because they think you're smart and they want your > input, or they're hiring you to shut you up. > > Are you getting a paycheck from your employer, or are you taking a > bribe? They aren't the same thing. That's the point. The IETF has functionally become a covert arena where corporate entities expand technology to bolster their market dominance, and since virtually all of us employed in the IT or infrastructure/server world are tied to LAN protocols. As such the IETF is functionally inextricably tied to our employers and their business, meaning that we do in fact represent the interests of our employers when we participate inside the IETF, even if our Employers are Academic in nature. Take CISCO, JUNIPER, QUALCOMM and many many others for instance. Could any of these entities survive without the service that the IETF provided and continues to provide to them? I think the answer is pretty obvious and an Court who looked at the technologies and their value in the business development of infrastructure would see the "lies put forth" in the public statement by IETF Management that the IETF only represents individuals. In fact the IETF of today only represents entities with enough money to send people to meetings and to pay for their staff's hours spent interacting with the IETF and in vetting the IETF's designs meaning genesis is occurring based on that effort. This also opens the can of worms of litigation against the IETF and WG members for their actions in either actively blocking or damaging initiatives in place, since neither are "Open and Fair" meaning that the IETF also is liable there IMHO. Just my two cents... Todd Glassey > > -- > Dean > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >
begin:vcard fn:Todd Glassey n:Glassey;Todd email;internet:TGlassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf