IETF 77 in Anaheim

I just attended the Newcomers Tutorial and the take home point for me was that IETF is a commune and not a police state. I.e., the IETF looks for "rough consensus" and does not "enforce".


Originally posted on Kool Aid Served Daily
Copyright (C) 2010, Kool Aid Served Daily
Comments:

As to "rough consenus" and the IETF's poliical complextion, "rough consensus does not excludE police-state attitudes. THE IETF does have a hierarhical
structure of area directors and group chairs and there is a pervasive worry among AD'sthat allowing divergeces from working group Fuehrerprinzip will allow time-wasting arguments about procedure. there is the feling tht we could wind up with something like th U. S. Senate.

A far as rough consensus, the big questions is "who decides what the rough consensus is". When I went so far as to say that we had a "onsensus" on something, the area irector was grievously offended. I think he thought of it as somewhat like lese masjeste. I was told that the chair (only) could declare consenseus. As far as Communes go, remember that there have been Communes in which many were executed. I've never seen anyone executeed or expelled. The IETF generally workss by reason but bureaucracy sometimes rules. Look at the history of I18n in nfsV4 to look at how reason and directions from above interqct(NOt ALWAYS FOR THE best, SIGH!) th "enorcemetn" was a clear direction that if RFC3530 did not use/embrace "stringprep", it wouldnt' be appoved. That was somebody's rough oncsnsus but it ws enforced on the nfsv4 working gtoup. Just tryin to add a few facts to the discussion Finally RFC503bis did mnage to avoid stingprep,so as a poliec stte, it wsn't a very effective on one. The IETF has been a good home for v4 developmen, 44vn thouh it oesn' tully mnnge the apothoisso-fredom elf-img you cited.

Posted by Dave noveck on February 21, 2011 at 08:22 AM CST #

to "rough consenus" and the IETF's poliical complextion, "roughh consensus" idea does not exclude police-state (in a very broad sense)attitudes. The IETF does have a hierarhical
structure of area directors and group chairs and there is a pervasive worry among AD'sthat allowing divergeces from a working group Fuehrerprinzip will allow time-wasting arguments about procedure. There is the feling that we could wind up with something very like thr U. S. Senate. (the self- described "World's Greatest Deliberative Body" which would take several decades and tens of billions of dollars to come anywhere near RFC 530.

A far as rough consensus, the big questions is "who decides what the rough consensus is". When I went so far as to say that we had a "consensus" on something, the Srea Director was grievously offended. I think he thought of it as somewhat like lese masjeste. I was told that the chair (only) could declare consenseus. As far as Communes go, remember that there have been Communes in which many were executed. I've never seen anyone executeed or expelled or threateened with either of those. The IETF generally workss by reason but bureaucracy sometimes rules. Look at the history of I18n in nfsV4 to see how reason and directions from above interact(NOt ALWAYS FOR THE best, SIGH!) The "enforcement" in this case was a clear direction that if RFC3530 did not use/embrace "stringprep", it wouldnt' be appoved. That was somebody's rough conensus but it was enforced on the nfsv4 working gtoup. Just trying to add a few facts to the discussion! Finally, note that RFC503bis did mAnage to avoid stingprep, so as a polCE stAte, it wsn't a very effective one. The IETF has been a good home for v4 development, even though it doesn' fully mange to reach the apotheosis-of-fredom self-image you cited. DAVID.NOVEC

Posted by guest on February 21, 2011 at 08:30 AM CST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed
About

tdh

Search

Archives
« April 2014
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
   
       
Today