On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:08:08PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >
> >Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >>This isn't a call for bureaucracy, but for precision. As this year's
> >>glitch
> >>shows, extreme precision is needed in the rules.
> >
> >
> >Interesting. What it showed me is that we cannot anticipate every
> >contingency.
> >
> >
> >Hence what it showed me is that we need better statement of principles
> >and less effort to try to specify every problem and solution that might
> >ever occur.
>
> I don't think that is inconsistent with the need for precision. It's
> ambiguity that leads to problems - for example, ambiguity about who
> resolves problems during the formation of NomCom.
methinks there is a bit of confusion here.
brian seems to be arguing for a (nearly) completely objective
state ... (which, imho, brings nearly byzantine buraucracy
as a "feature")
and dave is making the argument that subjective state is a viable
alternative.
and one can be precise in either state.
to my memory, one could segment the IETF at about the century mark
along these lines:
20th century :: subjective/precise
21st century :: objective/ambigious
and the second state (21st century) is ambigious precisely because
there is not enough bureaucracy to codify every contingency.
if this is a rational characterisation, i know which state i'd rather
work in.
--bill
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
