In my (very long) time working with the IETF, I have never heard the
IETF deliberative process described quite as well as Keith has done
below. I would strongly urge the IESG to memorialize this verbatim in
at least two places - the newcomer's entry page, and (for the last
paragraph), the ID submission page. There may be other places where
this text will serve as a warning post against unrealistic expectations.
Note my "verbatim" recommendation - I would avoid the urge to tweak.
Mike
On 1/26/2018 6:43 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
IETF does try to be open to new ideas. But people bring new ideas to
IETF all the time, and statistically speaking, most of those new ideas
are bad ideas because they are coming from people without enough
exposure to enough experience that would let them realize that they
are bad ideas. So experienced IETF participants tend to reject bad
or dubious ideas in ways that may seem impolite or rude. This is
(mostly) not because they are rude people overall, it is simply
because there are so many bad ideas presented here, as a consequence
of IETF's openness.
The people who succeed in getting IETF to adopt their ideas are those
who are willing to listen to feedback, take it seriously, understand
its relevance, and adapt their ideas in light of the feedback.
People who expect to be taken seriously without being willing to do
those things tend to not succeed here. Even good ideas need
refinement, and IETF makes decisions by rough consensus. Someone who
isn't willing to listen to feedback will have a difficult time
building consensus. And even when a relatively good idea is
presented, community members are less likely to try to help people
refine their ideas, if those people seem unwilling to accept
constructive feedback and consider compromises.
Also: IETF makes it relatively easy to post an internet-draft. But
posting an internet-draft doesn't do anything but make the draft
available for download and send out an announcement to a mailing list.
It doesn't schedule any discussion on the draft, it doesn't refer
the draft to any working group, and it doesn't mean that anybody will
take it seriously or even read it - whether it's good or not. That's
just how the process works here. It's how it has to work. There
aren't enough active participants in IETF for every internet-draft to
be taken seriously. We'd never get any work done at all if we
undertook an obligation to try to make every proposal successful.
Keith