Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:18:32 -0700

> I totally agree with Keith here, this is not a subject for this WG.

Apparently on the grounds that you don't think it is a problem.

The PROBLEM I see with the IETF is that the top down management insists on
having its way on every damn last thing. Including this issue.

If the IETF establishment won't even budge on this one then there is zero
value to the rest of PROBLEM. 

> Regarding the RFC document format, the RFC ASCII format is in 
> my opinion outstanding, compared to the complicated 
> formatting rules used by other organizations where you waste 
> lots of time just on getting the document format right.

I have never spent half as much time getting a document format right as I
have for the IETF. Even the W3C rules for HTML are not as much hassle.

Again, the issue is who gets to decide.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:38:33 -0400

> having its way on every damn last thing. Including this issue.

We really need to have a description of why this issue is a
problem for the IETF (i.e. not a matter of individual
preference) or have it dropped.

Thanks,

Melinda

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:41:10 +0800

I guess when the rough consensus is not going your way, it is "top-down 
decision". Hello??

Lars have his rights to his opinion as much as you do.

-James Seng

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:56:44 -0700

The real problem Phillip is that you are right. The IETF is a an empire and
it will fall - but there are too many people that have their entire lives
and their income dependant on keeping the IETF ass it is today, and in a
state where they and ONLY THEY, make the calls.

I harken this to the last days of Rome - and I wonder how this city will be
'sacked'

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)'" <[email-masked]>; "Keith
Moore" <[email-masked]>; "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:21:21 -0400

> Lars have his rights to his opinion as much as you do.

Congratulations to Lars for being promoted to being part of the
"top-down clique".  

When I disagreed with Phil earlier, I found out that in the world
according to Phil, I'm apparently doing it only to suck up to the
"ruling clique" so that I could someday be on the IESG or even the IAB
some day.  Never mind the fact that I have absolutely no interest in
either job...

						- Ted

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:29:36 -0700

James - the problem is that a consensus doesn't exist in the IETF. A
consensus is based on a concept of a number of people actually being able to
vote on something and that doesn't exist here. What does exist here is a
concept of micro-special interest groups that come together to specifically
advance **their** initiatives at the expense and to stop all others that
would  compete with them. If you doubt this do a work flow analysis on
RFC2026, RFC2223, and RFC2418 as it pertains to the standards track
processes.

What you will find is that you are clearly wrong here, and that also is one
of the problems with the IETF. What I am saying is that in the current
system any group of people declaring themselves the majority first are
accorded that.

Today the mighty win always in the IETF, but this too ***is*** going to
change.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>;
"'Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:54:49 +0800

Ah, but we dont do "consensus", unlike JTC1 or other organisation. We do 
"rough consensus" and there is a big differences.

"If you are in Rome, do as a Roman."

You can't compare IETF culture with any other organisation just like you 
cannot compare a Chinese culture using American culture presumation.

-James Seng

todd glassey wrote:

>>>I have never spent half as much time getting a document format right as
> 
> I
>

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:11:49 -0700

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts

> preference) or have it dropped.

Becuase of the words "Fair and Open" which appear ubiquitously in many IETF
structural documents.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:42:59 -0700

We are not talking about the Chinese Culture, or the current government of
China, we are talking about that the IETF standards process is more like
"The Family Feud" than anyone ever bargained for. You argue a bunch of
questions before the WG Chair and then republish your big guess just to get
to round three where the IESG stumps you with a no-faith vote, or avoids the
question all together.

Hell there is no "legal" reason for the IETF to publish anything, and if you
doubt that read the RFC's and the new IPR documents where the IP Rights are
defined. Its hysterical.

Todd

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>;
"'Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts

> "rough consensus" and there is a big differences.

No we dont. What we do is a "public agreement" process wherein a group of
three or four individuals make virtually all, if not in fact all the
decisions on each and every one of the IETF's standard initiatives within
their hosting WG, and any dissenterrs voices have been set up to be
eliminated via RFC2418 or other disicplinary processes.

> "If you are in Rome, do as a Roman."

Oh you mean spend... that's it, spend...

> cannot compare a Chinese culture using American culture presumation.

Right - but any analyst can build an IETF Standards workflow from RFC2026,
2223,  2418 and the new IPR I-D's and document the various decision gates
and their influencing or controling factors...  When done one would then
extract specific phrases and ideas codified in these three secular IETF
documents and point out how the work flows violate the words and certainly
their spirit... Hmmmm -

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:07:06 +0800

Interesting. Perhaps you can enlighten all of us by pointing out the 
conflicts. But please do so in the IPR list and not here unless there is 
a wider IETF problem to address.

-James Seng