Subject: RE: ASCII art

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:08:51 -0800

No, the IETF needs to demonstrate that it is CAPABLE of change.
 
The Internet has changed and will continue to change. If the IETF wants to remain relevant to the future of the Internet it must change as well. Note that 'remaining relevant' is not exactly a stretch goal
 
How familiar the bureaucrat's definition of priorities: 'needed for the good of the institution'. Does this mean that you think that the IETF only exists to serve its own interests?
 
There are a billion users out there who expect much more of this institution than they receive. We have a mission here that they expect us to realize: an Internet that is open, safe and accessible to everyone.

________________________________

From: Ted Faber [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wed 23/11/2005 10:22 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Dave Aronson (re IETF); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: ASCII art

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:34:31AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The real reason to change the RFC format is that the IETF needs to make
> a visible sign that it is capable of institutional change.

Boy, I'm hoping that was a typo or rhetorical or something.  Because as
written it's pretty poorly reasoned.  I'd prefer to make institutional
changes only when they're needed for the good of the institution, not to
prove that there's working process machinery.

--
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 08:59:46 -0800

> No, the IETF needs to demonstrate that it is CAPABLE of change.

Changing the workings of the IETF (and in this case the document format)
to prove that it's possible (or to show that the IETF can do so) is not
attractive to me in any way.

Changing the document format in a way that benefits the Internet and the
community at large (or even in a way that made IETF business easier to
conduct) is worth considering.  I've heard several arguments along those
lines, but remain unconvinced.

>  
> The Internet has changed and will continue to change. If the IETF
> wants to remain relevant to the future of the Internet it must change
> as well. Note that 'remaining relevant' is not exactly a stretch goal

"The IETF must change" is content-free.  If you can find someone to
argue that the IETF needs to remain static, please argue with them.
That person is not me.

>  
> How familiar the bureaucrat's definition of priorities: 'needed for
> the good of the institution'. Does this mean that you think that the
> IETF only exists to serve its own interests?

No.

Sorry I wasn't clear: the IETF process (and document formats) are
conventions that we as a community share to do our collective work.
When they facilitate that work, those conventions are for the good of
the institution because they enable the institution to help humanity.
Changing those conventions in ways that impede the function of the
institution is bad for the people in the community and the society as a
whole.

IMHO changing these conventions just to demonstrate that such a thing is
possible, or only to show that the institution is collectively capable
of doing such a thing, rather than because the convention is impeding
the work of the institution (and the benefit to humanity) is a waste.

I can be more explicit if my position is unclear, but an interpretation
that I am trying to perpetuate the current conventions of the IETF for
the purpose of perpetuating the current conventions of the IETF is a
pretty serious misinterpretation of my position.

Be advised, I consider the implication that I am a bureaucrat an insult.

---

From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:55:31 +1100

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
|> On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
|> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:09 AM
|> To: Ted Faber
|> Cc: Dave Aronson (re IETF); [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: ASCII art
|> 
|> No, the IETF needs to demonstrate that it is CAPABLE of change.
|>  
|> The Internet has changed and will continue to change. If the 
|> IETF wants to remain relevant to the future of the Internet 
|> it must change as well. Note that 'remaining relevant' is 
|> not exactly a stretch goal
|>  
|> How familiar the bureaucrat's definition of priorities: 
|> 'needed for the good of the institution'. Does this mean 
|> that you think that the IETF only exists to serve its own interests?
|>  
|> There are a billion users out there who expect much more of 
|> this institution than they receive. We have a mission here 
|> that they expect us to realize: an Internet that is open, 
|> safe and accessible to everyone.

Personally I'm not against change when it is going to achieve or help us
achieve our goals.  I dislike change for the sake of change or to make someone
feel as if they are doing something.

Any change to the RFC formats has to be considered with the goals of the IETF
in mind, not the ease it may bring to a few.  I haven't seen any arguments
that convince me changing from ASCII for text and diagrams would be an
improvement or further the goals of the IETF.  I see too many drawbacks and
would hate to see RFC and other documents presented with diagrams that would
require me to find and download templates and art files to be able to view
them or to have special programs to read them.

I'm trying to convince people that plain text is the best and I often point
out IETF documents as a proof the concept works.  The KISS principle works
well with documents.  It is PR and sales that always want documents to be
flashy and contain elements not all can view.

Opening up a document in vi, notepad or MS Word and having it readable and
understandable in all is good.

If a format can be found that allows as wide an opportunity of being
compatible with the same programs people use now then it may be worthwhile to
change, I can't see any real benefits at the moment.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch