Subject: RE: ADs who are also WG chairs

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 05:59:51 -0700

> I am saying that the paid-membership makes OASIS very different from 
> IETF, fundamentally. So you cannot say "Oh, this and this works in 
> OASIS" and assume it also works for IETF.

I am saying the charge is utterly irrelevant to the argument. It is 
simply a convenient excuse not to consider the unpleasant ugly little
fact that the very system that you are claiming is impossible is
working fine in OASIS.

I am certainly NOT 'assuming' that democracy would work for the IETF,
I am demonstrating that it works in a body that does very similar
work and further that the cosmetic differences between the 
organizations do not affect the workability of democracy. That
is not 'assuming', it is a reasoned argument. You on the other hand
are asserting that democracy cannot work in the IETF on the basis of 
no proof whatsoever.

If you do not want ALL Internet standards developed in that forum
reform the IETF so that it is genuinely open, democratic and
accountable.

		Phill

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 21:37:25 +0800

> fact that the very system that you are claiming is impossible is

It is absolutely relevant. If you can find an organisation which is not 
restrictive in its membership AND at the same time deal with consensus 
using voting mechanism, then let us know.

> are asserting that democracy cannot work in the IETF on the basis of 

Yes, OASIS works within its context. But it is comparing apple & orange. 
One is a paid-membership model and the other isn't.

Proof me wrong. Name me one organisation I asked for as above.

> reform the IETF so that it is genuinely open, democratic and

Once again, 'democratic' is not one of our core principle, AFAIK. 
Running code & rough consensus is the IETF core principle.

Or are you proposing we change this too?

-James Seng

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 10:06:22 -0400

> using voting mechanism, then let us know.

This discussion has parked itself in solution space and
should be moved to the solutions mailing list
(http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions)
or, at least, not continue here.  Our task is to identify
and sort through problems without presuming solutions.

Melinda

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 13:47:13 -0400

> and sort through problems without presuming solutions.

The first question is whether there is a problem.  Phillip
Hallam-Baker has expressed (repeated, through many e-mail messages)
unhappiness which he has interpreted as problems in the IETF.  

I'd like to know if these concerns are shared by others in the
community, or not.

An any experienced working group chair knows, just because one or even
a few people are making a huge amount of noise on a list, might mean
that there is a problem that few others are seeing --- but it might
also just mean that those folks are a minority opinion that are the
other side of a "rough consensus".

						- Ted

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:14:50 -0400

> I'd like to know if these concerns are shared by others in the

We've agreed that we don't need consensus on identified
problems for them to be reflected in the document (otherwise
the document would be empty).  What we need is a clear
description of the problem and a general sense that what's
being described is not the Problem From Another Planet.  

Personally, I believe that there really may be some issues
here, but they need to be articulated more clearly and we
need for the participants in the discussion to show a little
more restraint.  

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 14:31:19 -0400

> being described is not the Problem From Another Planet.  

Agreed.  But nevertheless, I think it's fair to ask if Phillip's
concerns are shared by others.  If they are, it would be a strong
indicator that they aren't what you called a "Problem From Another
Planet".

						- Ted

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 14:43:37 -0400

> indicator that they aren't what you called a "Problem From Another

To a point.  What I'm really asking here is that as the
discussion continues, let's all be mindful about lowering
the heat rather than raising it and keeping the discussion
as impersonal as possible under the circumstances.

Melinda

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:48:44 -0700

> the document would be empty).

one hopes the document will differentiate between problems
which seem to be widely perceived as such and those which
are not.  and between those which are root causes and those
which are not so perceived.

fwiw, i found scott brim's ref
    <http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html>
extremely educational, and am still digesting it.

randy