- Original Message -
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:34 PM
Hi Ted,
At 11:46 08-11-2012, Ted Hardie wrote:
Thinking a bit about the directions that conversation took, I think
there is both a relatively
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
Ted,
Hi Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think some of the points you
make below echo some of the issues Sam raised, particularly that the
scope of authority makes increased process appropriate. I'm still
Ted: Very nice but I would go further. You believe that everyone in the
IETF has either internalized the mission or will in the course of
participating. I think the IETF has already lost that unity of mission,
particularly with the influx of corporate participants who were not
around in the
Hi -
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
To: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change
Ted: Very nice but I would go further. You believe that everyone in the
IETF has either
On 10/11/2012 18:26, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi -
From: Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu
To: Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: Common sense, process, and the nature of change
Ted: Very nice but I would go further. You
On 11/10/2012 9:26 AM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Even in those cases, however, behaving as though those participants
were primarily motivated by the IETF mission generally seems the best
way to sustain the collaboration, or at least the illusion of collaboration,
and hopefully get *something*
At the plenary last night, Andrew Sullivan set off a series of
conversations at the mic lines by asking what seems at first to be a
fairly simple question: why is that we seem now to have more process
and less reliance on common sense? As those at the plenary will have
noticed, the conversation
Ted,
Thanks for a thoughtful note. I think you may well be on to an
explanation here. But there's something of a bitter irony about it.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:46:30PM -0500, Ted Hardie wrote:
process to restrict those unknown future incumbents. That's
interesting in part because we
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote:
Both of these seem right to me, but the irony is that the fear of
unknown future incumbents is all by itself creating the warm, dark
place where we are growing the things that hinder the mission of the
organization.
Ted == Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com writes:
Ted want to trust individuals as much as we used to. That lack of
Ted trust isn't directed at the current IESG, IAOC, or IAB, but at
Ted future incumbents. We have come to the idea that allowing a
Ted current set of office-holders to
Ted,
On 11/8/2012 2:46 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
why is that we seem now to have more process
and less reliance on common sense?
...
Thinking a bit about the directions that conversation took, I think
there is both a relatively simple answer to Andrew's question and a
much larger piece
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Sam Hartman hartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
So, for myself, as the importance of the work an organization does, the
maximum I am willing to trust anyone with regard to process issues
decreases significantly.
This is not a negative statement about any office
Hi Ted,
At 11:46 08-11-2012, Ted Hardie wrote:
Thinking a bit about the directions that conversation took, I think
there is both a relatively simple answer to Andrew's question and a
much larger piece of context that need to be teased out of the
discussion. The relatively simple answer is that
On 11/8/12 10:34 PM, SM wrote:
Frankly, I don't know what the IETF is.
You are not the only one, and this needs to be fixed.
Eliot
Ted == Ted Hardie ted.i...@gmail.com writes:
Ted I think the old catchphrase for this was rule of law, not rule
Ted of men, and I agree that there are fundamental benefits of
Ted that approach. But the starting point of this discussion was
Ted questioning why we seem to need
I don't know if there are cases where we've recently disagreed about how
much latitude to grant our leadership.
iaoc/marshall
On 11/9/12 1:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't know if there are cases where we've recently disagreed about how
much latitude to grant our leadership.
iaoc/marshall
Not only did we not trust the leadership, but we also didn't trust the
plenary! THAT has to change.
Eliot
17 matches
Mail list logo
