Subject: RE: [newtrk] Comments on draft-klensin-newtrk-std-repurposing-00. txt

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:55:59 -0700

Larry,

	I am not sure what you mean by 'that type of tool',
but you are missing the point I am making. It is one concrete
manifestation of an underlying systemic issue. 

	What is the process for getting the IETF to the point 
where the use of a type of tool is allowed?

	I don't think that there is one. The only response that
I ever get here is a redirect to the bit bucket. PDF is allowed
as a document format even though it is proprietary. HTML is
not. And in either case the result is moot since the RFC
pages will bring up the text version.

	MARID has been pootling arround trying to use Jabber
as a conferencing tool. There is a real conferencing tool
that has been found vastly more effective than Jabber called
the telephone. 

	We can easily make use of that resource, easy enough to
get calls sponsored. But the general belief is that this 
mode of working is not allowed. 

	As an experiment I spent 1 hour trying to get a Jabber
client up and running to connect to the MARID discussions 
using only the information available on the MARID web site, 
the jabber.org website and sites linked from those and the 
jabber group pages. This is not a technology ready for prime 
time.

	Why does the IETF membership have absolutely no say in
the way that they are forced to work?

	Why is there such a control freak insistence in keeping
methods of working that were outmoded when introduced?

	The real problem of the IETF is that by design there is
absolutely no accountability. Yes we can all pretend that the
problem is that there are three standards process steps. But
the real problem is that there is no accountability at any
of those steps.

	If you want WGs to be accountable to the IESG through this
process then the IESG is going to have to be accountable to
the WGs.

	As it is we cannot even choose our own chairs. We are 
treated in exactly the way that the Soviet Union used to treat
people, we are told that this is the best-est, free-est and
most democratic of all possible societies. Then we are told
that all the decisions get made elsewhere and that nobody should
ever question this fact.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 6:07 PM
> To: 'Hallam-Baker, Phillip'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [newtrk] Comments on
> draft-klensin-newtrk-std-repurposing-00.txt
> 
> 
> Phillip,
> 
> I agree that having appropriate tools for automatically
> tracking various work items in IETF is a critical component
> for upgrading IETF processes. But there's a separate
> group, [email-masked], working on specifying
> improved IETF tools.
> 
> I would suggest, rather than discussing this on the
> NEWTRK mailing list, the discussion of the IETF web site,
> document processing tools, etc. be moved to that group.
> 
>     [email-masked]
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Larry (member of tools-team)
> -- 
> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:48:35 -0700

Certainly I've participated in IETF activities that involved
telephone conference calls. My experience with conference
calls with more than about 8 participants has been poor.
The W3C's use of irc combined with telephone conference calls
(where IRC is used for queuing and minutes but not for
discussion) may be something we could offer to IETF groups,
and I'll certainly bring it up in the tools group.

I'm not sure I can judge the 'ready for prime time' of
Jabber by your experiences with one of its clients you
tried. My experience (and that of others I know) differs.

I'm less certain about forcing groups to use tools they
don't want or don't need. I think it's important that
groups communicate status to the world through their
website.

You question the mechanism for selection of WG chairs
("appointed by AD", basically), and also the chair's
control over the method of communication. I think these
are interesting topics, also, although you've not suggested
any alternatives.

However, I don't think these are appropriate topics for
NEWTRK. Perhaps we need some kind of 'ietf administration
restructuring' coordination group to take up issues
that are outside the scope of the individual working
groups established so far.

Larry

.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:18:10 +0200

> groups established so far.

The mailing list I have set up for that type of discussion is 
[email-masked].

               Harald

.