<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] RFC 3774 on IETF Problem Statement
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ga] RFC 3774 on IETF Problem Statement
- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:57:20 +0200
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
RFC 3774
Title: IETF Problem Statement
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3774.txt
A very good document about a governance issue for the IETF. True, IETF has a lot of problems but how many organizations are willing to do such an auto-analysis? Not ICANN, for sure :-)
Most organizations prefer to repeat reassuring statements like RIPE-NCC mantras "We are the community and therefore we cannot be wrong".
A few sentences from the RFC to give you an idea (the last one being for people like Jeff W. who still did not catch that not everybody on Earth speaks english):
o The IETF is unsure who its stakeholders are. Consequently,
certain groups of stakeholder, who could otherwise provide
important input to the process, have been more or less sidelined
because it has seemed to these stakeholders that the organization
does not give due weight to their input.
...
For an organization with 'engineering' in its title and participants
who are likely to trot out the statement "Trust me, I'm an engineer!"
when confronted with the need to find a solution to a particularly
knotty problem, the IETF has, at least in some cases, extremely
ineffective engineering practices.
...
Thus, the IETF appeared to have created an affinity
group system which tended to re-select the same leaders from a
limited pool of people who had proved competent and committed in the
past.
Members of this affinity group tend to talk more freely to each other
and former members of the affinity group - this may be because the
affinity group has also come to share a cultural outlook which
matches the dominant cultural ethos of the IETF (North American,
English speaking). Newcomers to the organization and others outside
the affinity group are reluctant to challenge the apparent authority
of the extended affinity group during debates and consequently
influence remains concentrated in a relatively small group of people.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|