Re: 18 months

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Harald,

We have important problems to solve in the IETF and they should be
discussed in a constructive tone that seeks a productive resolution.
Denigrating positions and people that you disagree with is not a very
good way to achieve that productive result.

Both the tone and language of your posting to the problem-statement
mailing list constitutes a public, personal attack on me by the IETF
Chair. (If anyone is unclear about the specifics in your note I am
referring to, we can discuss that separately.)

Your note was both unwarranted and inappropriate. It was not helped by
your attributing to me statements and positions that I neither made
nor agree with.

If you believe I have attacked you, or treated your views condescendingly I
absolutely apologize, but since I think this has not happened, please tell
me what it was I said.

Yes, we disagree about some important things. Forgive me for believing that
disagreement is a normal, acceptable and constructive part of the process.

Please refrain public ad hominems in the future.

d/


Monday, January 6, 2003, 12:02:13 AM, you wrote:
Harald> --On søndag, januar 05, 2003 09:45:08 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Harald> wrote:

>> Folks,
>>
>> Monday, December 23, 2002, 11:42:22 AM, you wrote:
>> Joel> The assumption that long-winded working groups inevitably
>>
>> It would be great if we could design a process that was infinitely
>> flexible and could adapt to every possible working group setting.
>> However we are unlikely to achieve that.
>>
>> Therefore, if we argue for or against proposals based on individual
>> examples or exceptions, we will make no progress.

Harald> Dave,

Harald> your statement as written seems to be that we should accept your perception 
Harald> of a pattern without question, and that counterexamples are uninteresting 
Harald> because they are exceptions or individual examples.

Harald> I would suggest that in the absence of verifiable data, detection of 
Harald> patterns is an exercise in theology, not engineering.

Harald> So I would suggest that when you claim a pattern, you also mention at least 
Harald> 3 specific examples that you think fit the pattern.

Harald> We've been talking a lot about "success" and "failure" here, but rarely 
Harald> saying which projects we consider in each category - probably because we 
Harald> all know that not everyone agrees on the status of each project.

Harald> But unless we stop pussyfooting, I think we cannot engineer for reality.

Harald>                      Harald

>> My own discussion tried to claim some *patterns*.  A pattern does not
>> require correlation of 1.0.  It does not require that there be no
>> exceptions.  Rather it looks for dominant behavior.  One might even call
>> it a rough consensus pattern.
>>
>> My claim is that the *pattern* of IETF performance shows that excessive
>> time highly correlates with poor productivity and utility.
>>
>> If we build a process that is tailored for the exception, we are likely to
>> retain the current IETF productivity problems. However that is not the
>> IETF folks seem to want. So the question is how to improve productivity
>> without losing the essential core to our process.
>>
>> d/
>> --
>>  Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
>>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>>  t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850
>>
>>



d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc@dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850