Changing the subject line yet again. On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:57 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 5/11/19 4:06 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This reply seems to presume that "independent" developers should be > > > considered by IETF to be the exceptional case, and only "dependent" > > > developers (presumably those funded by huge corporations) have a right to sit > > > at the big table. I think it should be the other way around - IETF should be > > > optimized to facilitate contributions from independent parties, and those > > > with sponsorship are welcome to sit at the same table as everyone else. > > > > I think that, compared to other so-called SDOs, that the IETF is very much > > already heavily optimized in that way. > > I'm reminded of a sign that I once saw that said "Mediocrity is > excellence at pursuing the mean", and thinking "That must be the motto > of <X>!" > > (X was an organization in which I'd invested a lot of energy, and I > thought this because they were constantly comparing themselves with > other similar organizations both as a way of making decisions, and also > as a way to reassure themselves that they were "good enough") > > Let's not make that IETF's motto. > > > > There was a time when IETF was more like this, even after we had to pay our > > > own meeting costs. We got sucked into the mode of holding meetings at > > > expensive hotels, especially after our attendance figures pushed into > > > > Yes, it used to more like that, it is true. > > I think we could consciously shrink our meeting size to fit into smaller > > venues, but that decision would itself be considered to be excluding people. > > I think it's possible that our attendance is small enough now, that > we're on the ragged edge now of having a wider choice of venues. But I > don't want to discourage attendance! I'd rather see if we can make the > meetings a bit (a) shorter, (b) less expensive (including both hotel and > travel cost), and (c) more productive for the money/time expenditure, > thus a better value for those footing the bill. Zombie projects stagger through the hallways. Most orgs (of any sort) do do a yearly review of their projects and kill a percentage of them if they are not showing results. In my case I use very different techniques to ensure good code and standards, among others, the game of dealer, ( https://www.amazon.es/Dealers-Lightning-Xerox-Parc-Computer/dp/0887309895 ), and focusing (48 pt font) on running code and public deployment, more than rough consensus (8pt font). I can think of quite a few working groups within the ietf with projects on their agenda that were long ago surpassed by market forces, and the need for any further standards to appear, long since vanished. The winners in the market stop going to ietf, the losers plunk along trying to get their stuff standardized. To avoid howling here I'll skip mentioning the dozens I have on my list, and just pick on one that I was present at the founding of, homenet. Market forces have completely shifted out from under that working group. No serious vendor support ever appeared. The vendors most affected, never showed up. Specs exist, but code doesn't. There was a very good preso on all this at homenet 104. The members of that working group hummed overwhelmingly to recharter at ietf 104. After that, however, several core members of the group expressed to me that it would be best to shutter it entirely and attempt to move the core to an org that was actually focused on running code, more than further specifications and further wading through ietf processes, and thus, meet elsewhere, entirely. I feel a lot of working groups here could adopt the best of the ietf processes, dump the rest, and disband their ietf presence, meeting using better tools, cheaper hotels, and leaner processes. >From the bottom up, and the top down, it would be better to periodically ask hard questions (is this tech going to work?), do a market review (is this standard (still) needed?), and so on. Asking each working group to justify its continued existence and need for meeting space with a set of hard questions might be a start. Identifying what questions to ask, a start to that start. An ietf with 30% less working groups, and a larger percentage of the remainder working on standards that might matter, would be a better ietf. It is always easier to add, rather than subtract. > Keith > > -- Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-205-9740
