On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Michael StJohns <mstjohns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me try this again.
At 05:41 PM 6/10/2015, Eric Gray wrote:
>The biggest problem with this approach is that it tends to work more for people who
>are good at winning arguments, using whatever tactics they choose, over those who
>are right - on those occasions when the two are not the same.
So is this a characteristic of the IETF or not? Never, Sometimes, Always?
In any event, it's not about who's right, its about what's useful to solve the problem. Which causes problems when there are many ways to solve the problem, each reasonable, and each supported by its own choir.
There is winning the argument and there is winning the outcome. And those are certainly not always the same in IETF.
What worries me rather more is when the tactics that win an argument inside IETF are completely different to those necessary for success outside.
The success of the Web was only partly due to technical differences. URLs, 404 not found were both important. But a much more important factor was that the source code was put in the public domain without strings and instead of trying to discourage commercial activity, we spent time and effort trying to get them on board.
Now I see all sorts of proposals to do great things for privacy which begin 'first get rid of Google, Microsoft and Apple' as if this is a strategy for success.
>And some of the brightest would rather see us flounder as a group while they take
>their arguments elsewhere.
This sounds suspiciously like "they'll take their toys and go play somewhere else"? Which isn't really good behavior for adults IMHO.
This is a volunteer organization. If people think they are being treated unfairly, most will leave. IETF isn't this only game in town nor should it try to be.
I am not aware of anyone who says they want the IETF to flounder but I know quite a few folk who have packed up and left for venues where they feel they get a fair hearing.