Keith Moore wrote: >>>>At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the >>>>IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. >>> >>>perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people, >> >>They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-) > > The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people > and egocentric fools.
Ditto for the ADs themselves. > Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing > opinions as who which people are in which category. On both counts. >>>and they may not >>>have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final >>>review. >> >>Neutrality is a two-way street; it is required for ADs too, and they, >>just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet >>perspectives. > > There's more than one kind of neutrality. The kind of neutrality I was > talking about was one that would not inherently favor one vendor's approach > over another, or would not favor one of multiple equally-valid approaches over > another. However, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an AD having a > technical opinion that one approach is more valid than another. That's their > job. Ditto for individuals. ADs don't have a lock on tech bias and vendor neutrality, nor are they immune from favoring one of a number of equally valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures (e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs). >>> if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the >>>next NOMCOM. >> >>So the message is "get your employer to ante 80% of your time to the >>IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself"? > > Nope. The message is that if you are technically astute and have enough time > to review lots of documents from different areas, you will probably end up on > IESG. OTOH, if you don't have enough time to review large numbers of > documents from different areas, you aren't likely to have a sufficently broad > perspective to warrant allowing you to override the opinions of those who do. Consider the case where you're PAID to participate in a number of WGs (as I am, for example), either by your employer or a project sponsor. In those cases, you're unlikely to get a green-light to do 80% IESG, even if that's how much time you spend on IETF-related stuff anyway. The letter of support is the issue. It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. - although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply. > Of course you can still contribute your expertise in numerous ways - by > participating in WG discussions, sending comments to WGs you don't participate > regularly in, sending Last Call comments, sending comments to IESG well in > advance of Last Call, submitting your own drafts, etc. All of these are > highly appreciated, and some of them - particularly Last Call comments - carry > considerable weight. But just because you are enamored with (your opinion of) > your expertise doesn't mean that you get to have your work endorsed by the > entire organization without having it reviewed by people who attempt to make > sure that it makes sense from a broad perspective. > > Keith And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call. If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't have a unique right to overrides. Joe
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
