Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:56:56 -0700

> 
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> > Lars does not have the right to impose his decision on me.

Lars is free to present his work as shoddily as he chooses. He is not free
to impose his choices on me.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:24:22 +0800

Just have another thought, altho I may be over-generalizing...but bear 
with me for a moment.

Some standard organisation achieve consensus by doing a UNION of the 
ideas, ie, if A propose X and B propose Y, so long there is no conflict, 
we put both X & Y into the standard.

During voting, A dont object to Y if B dont object to X and vice versa 
(aka horse trading). The results is that it _is_ possible to achieve 
100% consensus altho we have a bloated standard.

IETF on the other hands prefers to do INTERSECTION of the ideas, ie, if 
A propose X and B propose Y, we take only the intersection of the ideas 
where there "rough consensus" and throw out those (from X or Y) that 
have does not have rough consensus.

While this remove horse trading problem and gives us a leaner standards, 
it also means we have to live with only very baseline standards, and in 
some cases, everyone equally pissed too (aka distribution of pain).

Which is comes back to the topic of "ASCII text" vs "other fancy 
document format". At this moment, we have rough consensus that ASCII 
text, with its limitation, is useful for the IETF. OTOH, there is no 
rough consensus for any other document format yet. (notice we doing 
INTERSECTION of ideas).

Should we also allow other document format? If no, why not? (And in 
certain ways, people have absolute reasons to be angry). But if yes, are 
we ready to change the way we do this?

Or a higher level question: Is the current way we process ideas, ie, 
taking only the parts which have rough consensus and leaving out those 
that dont have, a problem?

-James Seng

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:07:28 -0700

----- 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 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts

> have does not have rough consensus.

The problem is that this intersection becomes the one and only possiblity
from that WG and that is where the restraint of trade and possibly antitrust
type effects come into the play. A standard is critical for business
development, as evidenced by the funding of the IETF and the standards
process by  people like Cisco and MCI/WordCom, who  would not spend what
they spend on developing protocols in this arena... if there were no BizDev
value.

The problem is that for some of those that participate that this effort went
into developing their own wares whcih was totally cool, the problem is that
the otherside is true as well,  that the same development process also
supresses any other competeitve efforts.

If you doubt this then look to the standards track documents and answer the
following questions:

    1)     How is a compentitve standards vetted and where?
    2)    How does a competitive standard challange and retire another
standard?

    becuase if its in the same WG and the original standard's owners (and I
am not referring to the IETF here) are not interested in letting userp their
effort, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to get any competitve standard through
the IETF or into standardship. I am sorry, I have done the work-flow and
there is just no possible way in reality to unseat any incumbant standard no
matter what the really high level ideal states in the controlling documents.

> some cases, everyone equally pissed too (aka distribution of pain).

No - what it means is that the company for organization funding the most
number of voices in any WG wins, and does so  always... period. There is
nothing left to say here but if you or anyone else can prove otherwise, then
please do...

> rough consensus for any other document format yet. (notice we doing

No it doesnt. The issues of ASCII text only only serve today to make it
harder to participate and any person would agree to that.

The world has not stood still and is now to much more visual systems than
straight ASCII terminals and refusing to acknowledge that makes it harder
for the average person to participate in the IETF's processes, and I put it
to you that this is an intentional thing these days. In the beginning it
(ASCII only) made sense as the greatest-common-denominator but not anymore,
but this specific tact is used by any number of people to control how
difficult to create and file a document it is.

> that dont have, a problem?

James - the consensus issues are a fundamental structural problem with the
WG's and the Standards Process. I have pointed out other scatter-effects
from the same 'methods' and their implementation above... in closing here,
its important to note that theses are totally separate issues from the "how
documents are presented" or filing requirements therein.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:41:59 +0800

Todd,

IETF function on two core principles: running codes & rough consensus.

If you think that rough consensus is a fundamental problem, I suggest 
you start looking for an alt. organization to do your work. There are 
many other groups with what your perspection of the world should be.

-James Seng

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:04:09 -0700

No James - the IETF runs on the words Open and Fair. Read them as they apply
to the Standards processes as per SS 1.2 of RFC2026 and the words in SS9 as
well. These two simple words are the most important ones because they
constrain how all of the other processes and methods of the IETF' are to be,
no MUST be done, whether you interpret them as adverbs or adjectives. Either
way meeting their mandate forces the form of all other processes.

Not observing this requirement invalidates the entirety of the IETF's
process, and it simply becomes a place where the person or organization with
the most hand to count wins.

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: Saturday, July 12, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts

---

From: Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 10:58:58 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

>> No James - the IETF runs on the words Open and Fair.

Perhaps it's time to review what the IETF means by OPEN. 

OPEN means that participation in the IETF is available to anyone and
everyone. There are no dues or consortium-type fees to participate (and
no secret handshakes nor decoder rings). 

OPEN means that the use of our specifications are made available at no
charge, and are not limited to those who have, had, or will participate in
the IETF. They can even be used by other standards organizations.

OPEN means that WG email archives are available for anyone to read.

OPEN means that meeting minutes are made available to anyone who wishes to
read them.

OPEN means that anyone can walk up to the plenary microphone.

OPEN means that new ideas can be submitted for deliberation and
consideration. OPEN does NOT mean these ideas are always accepted and
incorporated. New ideas does not include old ideas that were not chosen by
the working group.

OPEN does NOT mean compliant with every possible definition (or
interpretation or assumption) of the word OPEN.

Steve