At 12:08 AM 2/28/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [ It is precisely because we do not operate a "sweat shop" that we
>do not expect everybody to engage on ALL the IETF lists. We have the quaint
>idea that the work should be shared out. Oddly enough, we have a company
>hierarchy, in which some people work for others. Apparently, this concept
>of organisation is outside your experience.
In all likelihood, Vernon has more corporate experience than you. On the
other hand, it is in a company with some unusual organizational models that
permit senior contributors to work largely outside the classic corporate
structure.
For that matter, the hierarchical formal model of the IETF is
deceptive. In very real and substantial ways, the IETF works in a fashion
far different from most organizations. Initiatives are almost always from
the bottom. Development is from the bottom. Decisions are almost always
from the bottom.
How many corporations work that way?
The IETF hierarchy provides administrative coherence and does periodic
technical sanity enforcement. This latter can get quite authoritarian, but
is really a negotiation between management and a working group, and it
occurs at very selected milestones only.
> Abuse is the refuge of the irrational. I note that you would prefer
>to reserve the right to "Contribute To The Standards Process" for yourself
>and other high-minded individuals. This is presumably the famed IETF "
>openness" in action. ]
And an experienced technical manager knows better than to take the bait
from a typically eccentric techie.
They also know better than to react to a comment from a single contributor
and assume that it in any way pertains to a group norm.
> > That some people HATE the ASCII format is not evidence about whether
> > ASCII is incomplete.
You managed to miss this part of Vernon's response. There is a difference
between happiness and productivity. And, for that matter, when have you
had a GOOD project where the engineers did not complain?
Personally I believe we can do better than ASCII, but there are 30 years of
history showing that it is an astonishingly good form and that the forms
used in other venues often result in more arcane documents.
> [ So, from now on all IETF illustrated presentations will consist
>solely of diagrams of packets, because any red-blooded protocol
>developer worth his salt is a wimp if he wants to draw anything else to help
>people understand what his I-D is saying. Oh, and, of course, if anyone
>dares to use anything but ASCII, then he can't be a protocol developer, can
>he ???? ]
Vernon was talking about specification documents. And here you go on to
make comments about presentations. Vernon was talking about requirements
for specifications. That is different from what people prefer for
presentations.
And from the style of your paragraph, here, the comment about managers
taking the bait comes to mind again.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
