On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 10:34:10AM -0500, Eric Rosen allegedly wrote: > Naturally every special interest group claims to be the defender of the > values of the larger community. Since there is no way to determine > objectively what is or is not in the "larger community's" interest, a > properly functioning IESG would not try to impose a particular vision, but > would just work to ensure that the output of the WGs is of suitable > technical quality. (Of course, every attempt to impose by fiat a particular > vision of the future is portrayed as an attempt to ensure technical > quality.)
.. > Gee, we often hear from the in-crowd that one of the problems with the IETF > is that the WG chairs aren't forceful enough in dismissing irrelevant > input. Perhaps "irrelevant" is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think > that irrelevant input should be dismissed more often by the chairs, as long > as "irrelevant" doesn't become a smokescreen for "doesn't accord with my > personal vision of the future." The IETF has to have a unifying vision, or else the Internet will be a hodgepodge. It can have different facets at different layers, and the IETF should limit itself to activities where that vision is important, but you need one. The vision may come from the participants, but the IESG is the focal point where that vision is expressed (imposed). > In cases like this, the charters are often dictated by the IESG, do not > necessarily reflect a good understanding of the WG's subject matter, and may > place arbitrary "prior restraint" restrictions on the solution. Sometimes > it's difficult to do a good job while trying to strictly follow the > charter. Well, that would be a sign of AD weakness. The vision requires input, and the IESG does need to learn, but there needs to be integration.
