Subject: Can we learn something from IETF history?

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 10:54:24 +0200

Dave,

I suddenly realized.....

you were AD of Standards Management from 1990 to 1993, if I interpret the 
list of past IESG members <http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html> correctly 
(and somewhat creatively - you are listed as "Network management" some of 
the time).
That would, I would think, include being responsible AD of the POISED 
working group, which had its initial hyperactive phase from August 1992 to 
March 1993.

Granted, this was an extremely tense time in the IETF's history (RFC 1396 
claims that the POISED list produced 20 Mbytes of mail from August to 
mid-November; this list has only produced 4.3 Mbytes of mail from November 
to May....), and Steve Crocker was obviously not the same kind of WG chair 
as Melinda and Avri, nor was the charter even closely related to the 
current charter.

But still, that's the past situation that most closely resembles the 
current one..... how would you say that the AD, IESG and IAB of that time 
positioned its management role in relation to the POISED WG?

                     Harald

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 07:58:23 -0700

Harald,

HTA> you were AD of Standards Management from 1990 to 1993, if I interpret the
HTA> list of past IESG members <http://www.ietf.org/iesg_mem.html> correctly
HTA> (and somewhat creatively - you are listed as "Network management" some of

I did net management for the first year of the 'modern' IETF (1989);  standards
process for the next 2 years; and "middleware" (including DNS) for the
year after that.

HTA> That would, I would think, include being responsible AD of the POISED
HTA> working group,

Nope. It did not report to me. I don't remember the reporting structure
for it. I d

HTA> But still, that's the past situation that most closely resembles the
HTA> current one..... how would you say that the AD, IESG and IAB of that time
HTA> positioned its management role in relation to the POISED WG?

The original changes to the IETF were not formulated by POISED.  Poised
was a follow-on effort.

The original work was done far less formally, with hallway conversations
as the means for floating ideas and exploring reactions, and the IETF
Plenary as the means of approving the changes.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:28:11 -0700

> as the means for floating ideas and exploring reactions

isn't this what some seem to call a closed conspiracy today?

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:29:20 -0700

>> as the means for floating ideas and exploring reactions

RB> isn't this what some seem to call a closed conspiracy today?

or a Design Team.

d/

---

From: Frank Kastenholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:31:22 -0400

>isn't this what some seem to call a closed conspiracy today?

We might call it that today
but that is not what it was then.

One simply needed to go up to the microphone during
an IESG plenary and ask a pointed question...
Or ask Phill Gross for 5 minutes to present an alternate
idea.

So maybe it was closed -- closed to those people who
lacked motivation and/or coherency...

F

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:42:45 -0700

> but that is not what it was then.

indeed.  and almost always, that is not what it is today.  unless
one needs to characterize things thusly to artificially polarize
the situation.

> lacked motivation and/or coherency...

that is life, i think.

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:56:58 -0700

Randy,

>> but that is not what it was then.
RB> indeed.  and almost always, that is not what it is today.  unless
RB> one needs to characterize things thusly to artificially polarize
RB> the situation.

just like it is polarizing -- or at least distracting -- to bring it up
in the middle of a thread that had nothing to do with conspiracies or
polarization.

nicely done.

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:12:55 -0700

> in the middle of a thread that had nothing to do with conspiracies or

thanks for the example

randy