--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:29 -0800 S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > I received a private comment which contained some some advice > about IETF process in response to the message at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86321.htm > l That advice contradicts the advice provided by participants > who are also Area Directors. Subramanian, Without details, the above is indistinguishable from innuendo. That is not helpful in informing the rest of us about anything other than that there are differences in opinion and perspective in the community (I trust that doesn't surprise anyone). I recommend (in public because this context seems to require it) that you go back to the person who made that comment, note the contradiction, and ask for permission to bring the IESG (or relevant ADs) into the conversation. I hope we can look forward to a report on your conclusions after the discussions that should result. > In my opinion such occurrences can cause confusion for the > average participant as it is difficult to know whom to > believe. But I think that leaves only two choices: (1) Someone who receives apparently-contradictory advice draws all parties involved into a conversation and tries to get the issues straightened out and the confusion eliminated. That is particularly important because I've often found that some apparent contradictions are merely people saying what is ultimately the same thing from widely different perspectives and in different terms. (2) We establish a complete canon of procedural rules and definitions, insist that anyone participating in the IETF formally subscribe to it, and kick anyone who deviates off all the mailing lists. I can't begin to list the reasons why the second would be a bad idea but, as long as we come from different backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives on the IETF, differences such as the one you describe are inevitable and the only important questions are whether we can put the effort and good faith into sorting them out (even if the result is in agreeing to disagree) or whether we just complain. > It can be even more difficult for people who reside > in some parts of the world due to cultural differences. Sure. There is no question that we've got a lot of cultural differences and resulting potential disconnects here, even among "native" speakers of English and/or North American and Western European residents. We should be working on them and it is good that attempts in that direction are moving forward. But there are some of those cultural issues here that are probably not going to change and probably shouldn't, even if changes would widen nominal participation. As two examples among many, those who are unwilling to speak up about their views are going to be at a disadvantage, at least until we replace rough consensus with secret ballots at every decision point. Second, if we could devise a vocabulary and interaction style that would be politically correct in every culture of the world, it would be a foreign language and culture to all, or almost all, of us and, if only for that reason, might not contribute to efficiency. The same comment would apply to our adopting the formalized language of international diplomacy as often used in some other SDOs. I do worry that industry consolidation and related factors are resulting in an increasing number of WGs with active participation only from people associated with a small number of companies. That not only looks bad but is a threat to making of industry standards even when everyone involved is acting in good faith. But I don't know any fixes other that reversing those industry trends or giving up. The first doesn't seem to be within our power and I assume there is consensus that the second isn't desirable. best, john