Subject: Fwd: Need for a rebuild [was I-D file formats and internationalization]

From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:01:58 +0100

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eduardo Mendez <[email-masked]>
Date: 10-dic-2005 11:43
Subject: Need for a rebuild [was I-D file formats and internationalization]
To: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>

2005/12/5, Gray, Eric <[email-masked]>:
>
> Ted,
> --> > The IETF does not make any effort to be representative of the
> Internet
> --> > community.
> -->
> --> 1) They do too.
> -->
> --> Hmmm.  I would have thought proof by assertion would be more fun.
> -->
> --> Seriously, you can argue that the IETF is failing to reach the
> --> stakeholders it claims to represent, but I think it's disingenuous to
> say
> --> that the group doesn't try to reach them.  There are low barriers to
> --> entry for interested parties, and concentrated efforts to find and
> --> coordinate with other networking standards bodies.  Those aren't the
> --> actions of a group of ostriches.
>
> It is true that the barriers to entry are low.  But, then, ostriches were
> not born with their heads in the sand.  How is the IETF process of driving
> new people away because they say stuff nobody wants to hear, different
> from
> burying its head in the sand?

This is why I am here as a political consultant.
I want to understand this. And help if I can.
.
Low barriers to come made too many _topics_ to join.
So IETF has not the competence for all what it discusses.
And not to decide when it has not all the top competences.

This makes it too complex and not interesting to learn.
It loops. People go away. So there is no need for a change.
But for a rebuild.

In policy we would need a revolution.
A revolution is making two U turns, ...
but losing the old stuff in the process.
Permitting to go ahead.

my 2 cents.

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