RE: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed statement on the I ETF mission )

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> >
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > It probably isn't a good idea for me to disagree with you publicly
> > about what our statement means, so I have only included the IESG
> > list.  If you think that I should take this to the wider audience,
> > then let me know.
> 
> I think that both the IESG and the community need to think about this.
> I sensed multiple levels in the IESG - including Ted commenting that he 
> liked the scope description from the small-group statemement better than 
> what was in the document.
> 
> Actually, disagreeing with me in public might be a good thing - it 
> reinforces the message that the IESG, too, does not regard this as a 
> finished product, but as input to the discussion.
> But what does the rest of the IESG think? Or should we wait until we meet 
> in Chicago before agreeing to take our disagreements public?
> 
It is only a few days away... so it does not matter that much if we 
wait a few days. I also see no problem if we show that we're not in
full agreement on this and that we need the community's help to get
to a consensus. 

> What's been interesting so far is that I've seen little or no objection to 
> the "the purpose of the IETF is .... standards" part of the statement.
> 
No objection, but there were a few statements of "the IETF is more than
just an SDO"

> This indicates to me that if we can get "for the Internet" defined right 
> (and I think you're right in that I was wrong in reusing the term from the 
> document in my bulleted list of alternatives), we've got a fair chance of 
> getting something useful out of the discussion.
> 
yes... but that is exactly one of the bigger problems.
it has to do with
- what work have we done that we shouldn't
  and that raises the question: should we abandon it or continue
- what work will we entertain from now on or better, will we
  base acceptance of new-work on the definition we end up with, or
  will we continue to not be force-full in saying NO
  My experience has also been that that saying NO or YES also has
  to do with who actually happens to be on the IESG
- it possibly has some impact on the 1000 flowers vs one standard
  as well.

Bert
>                           Harald
> 
> 
>