On 7/09/13 01:51 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
ianG <i...@iang.org> writes:
And, controlling processes is just what the NSA does.
How does '(a) Organizations and Conferences' differ from SOP for these sorts
In principle, it doesn't -- which is why SOPs are saboteur's tools of
preference. They are used against you, as the lesser experienced people
can't see the acts behind 
The point is one of degree. SOPs are there to resolve real disputes.
They can also be used to cause disputes, and to turn any innocent thing
into a fight. So do that, and keep doing that! Pretty soon the org
becomes a farce.
In contrast, strong leadership (the chair) knows when to put the lid on
such trivialities and move on. So, part of the overall strategy is to
neutralise the strong chair . As John just reported:
* NSA employees participted throughout, and occupied leadership roles
in the committee and among the editors of the documents
Slam dunk. If the NSA had wanted it, they would have designed it
themselves. The only conclusion for their presence that is rational is
to sabotage it .
 SOPs is standard operating procedures.
 This is the flaw in "don't attribute to malice what can be
explained by incompetence." Explaining by incompetence does not
eliminate that malice inspired incompetence. Remember, we are all
innoculated against malice, so we prefer to see benign causes.
 this is not to say that committees are ill-intentioned or people
are bad, but that it only takes a few with malicious intent and
expertise to bring the whole game to a halt. Cartels such as IETF WGs
are fundamentally and inescapably fragile.
 as a sort of summer-flu-shot, I present that document to each new
board as their SOPs.
The cryptography mailing list