> But if you aren't interested, why are you here? What's your interest? I > don't understand your point. Are you here to convince the rest of us that > the IETF is irrelevant?
Absolutely not. Nearly the opposite. I hope that if you look back at some of my other messages in this thread that's clear. >> You're complaining that some application-layer stuff like IM >> isn't as orderly as you'd like. > Disorder isn't good for the users, either. Its not just a personal > view of orderliness. And it isn't good for the market to have such > unnecessary and gratuitous disorder. That's why standards of any > form exist. I'm not so sure IETF can help user's other than by producing very good, easily accessed documents with available reference implementations. An endorsement/trust-based system for calling attention to good standards seems like all you've ultimately got -- why not institutionalize *that*? Why *isn't* the rest of the governance simply noise? Why *isn't* the rest of the governance simply a game a professional organization has agreed to play that will ultimately turn it into just another consortium? Isn't the rule-mongering just a very indirect attempt to find rules that coincidentally create the effects an endorsement/trust system would render in a more naked form? What's the "value add" of anything beyond an endorsement/trust system? My answers to those questions are clear and that's why I say: strike while the iron is hot -- while there are still recognizable names who roughly essentially deserve trust? -t _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
