|
If IETF is serious about considering [the needs of] end users as
its primary concern, it needs to be wider in scope than just
informing technical decisions by working groups. For instance,
IETF has a decades-long history of holding meetings, and making
appointments, in such a way as to favor those with large travel
budgets. Those who fund such individuals (which tend to be large
corporations and sometimes governments) cannot be said to
represent the interests of users first and foremost. And even if
the individuals who participate have often made a considerable
good-faith effort to do that, I've also seen exceptions to that. I'm not saying that this is an easy problem to address, or that
efforts to address this problem have not been made. There are
indeed ways of participating in IETF on the cheap, sometimes
effectively. But anytime you hear anyone in a privileged
position claim to represent the interests of ordinary people, your
BS meter should register a significant deflection. If we really
wanted to conduct our deliberations in such a way as to consider
the interests of end users as our primary concern (as opposed to
just telling ourselves that), we'd have to make fairly drastic
changes in how we operate. Offhand I have a hard time imagining
what that would look like. And I wouldn't expect to reverse ~25
years of inertia overnight. But we could probably do better than
we are doing. Anyway, you asked about which stream. To me it seems clear that, for any result of such discussion to carry weight and actually affect how we operate, it needs to be an IETF consensus document - thus BCP and not IAB stream. Keith On 3/18/19 5:58 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
|
