Subject: Re: What are the opt-in issues

From: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:59:28 -0400

No Marshall, telling us everything is alright and we should just trust the
great and the good is not going to help.

You may be correct in stating what a directorate SHOULD be, however that is
irrelevant. A directorate should not be an informal gatekeeper on the
standards track which is the role the WG chair has attempted to assign to
it.

The issue is not whether the formation of a directorate is legitimate but
whether the role of an unaccountable, unelected directorate meeting in
secret in a standards process is legitimate.

As for your statement that the directorate has no power, I have heard the
statement from a member of the IESG and the Directorate only to then be
directly contradicted as follows. "The Directorate has no power to create
but it does have an effective power to block, the AD would find it hard to
approve a specification against the advice of the directorate." Citizen D.
is apparently not the only member of the directorate who is under the
misapprehension that they hold an informal veto power.

What we are talking about is a case in which their are two specifications,
the status quo and the ammended specification. The power of veto thus
becomes the power of decision.

The right to give advice in a standards process is not the trivial matter
you purport it to be. Given your experience of ISO processes I can't believe
that you don't understand that to be the case.

Moreover your description of the appeals process is incomplete in two
respects. First you miss off step zero in any argument between a WG and a
chair which is for the WG members to tell the chair that they have no
confidence in him and it is time for them to resign. I second Paul's motion.

I have had no confidence in Randy Bush since my first experience of a DNSEXT
meeting. It is the only tme I have ever spoken in a standards group meeting
and been hissed at by the WG chair when I stated my company. I have a pretty
thick skin but I do not find such open intimidation acceptable which is why
I made my earlier complaint concerning the incident to the ADs. That type of
behaviour is I believe calculated to poison the atmosphere of any working
group and discourage particpation by legitimate .

The second respect in which your analysis is incomplete is that the IETF
process is not the final recourse. That is why the irregular procedure
adopted by the WG chair is so problematic. To put it bluntly the companies
that pay ISOC subscription fees to buy indemnity insurance to cover ADs and
WG chairs actions do not do so so that clowns like Bush can behave as if
they can run a working group as their own personal fifedom.

		Phill

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:18:32 -0700 (PDT)

Noting that the WG list <[email-masked]> where most
	of this discussion is moderated by Mr. Bush. 

-- 
--bill

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 19:00:03 -0700

> 	of this discussion is moderated by Mr. Bush. 

i don't think there's any problem with censorship.  ops.ietf.org has the
same A RR as psg.com, indicating that randy not only moderates this
list, he also hosts it.  i'm sure that, other issues aside, randy is
doing everything possible to ensure that the namedroppers list works
and his only moderation activity as far as i know is keeping spam out.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 03:02:28 +0000 (UCT)

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

> and his only moderation activity as far as i know is keeping spam out.

	That was the point. What ever else people may think, Mr. Bush
	is generally an reasonable person. Opinionated. Sarcastic.
	Does not suffer fools gladly. But he does his level best to 
	ensure that the "right" thing happens. Sort of like a number of
	people I know.
	
	Questions regarding what is the "right" thing are, perhaps, not
	open to debate. :)

--bill