Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to be lackofcommunicaiton here...

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:57:14 -0700

> From: Sandy Wills [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> (I use the car analogy almost every day in my small computer 
> and network maintenance company, because most of my customers 
> drive, and they recognize that as drivers they are 
> responsible for wisely using a technology that they don't understand.)
> 
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> 
> > The voices that need to be heard most in the IETF are the 
> 95% or more  
> > who have difficulty with the technology foisted upon them.
> > 
> > A century ago car breakdowns were invariably considered the 
> fault of 
> > the driver for failling to maintain their automobile sufficiently.
> 
>     Yes, but ONLY because, a century ago, cars were so 
> unreliable that only a mechanic would buy one, except for 
> those who were so wealthy that they could afford to hire a 
> mechanic to maintain it.  Of course you then blame the mechanic.

My point is that today the IETF is set up to only listen to the mechanics and to further their interests.

Cars became more reliable because consumers insisted on it and established organizations that were designed to give them a voice.

If the mechanics had got their way cars would probably still require a major service every 2,500 miles.

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

---

From: "Al Arsenault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:16:04 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 4:57 PM
To: Sandy Wills; ietf
Subject: RE: NOMCOM term limits... Re: Now there seems to
belackofcommunicaiton here...

<SNIP>
Cars became more reliable because consumers insisted on it and established
organizations that were designed to give them a voice.

If the mechanics had got their way cars would probably still require a major
service every 2,500 miles.

</SNIP>

Then you're dealing with the wrong mechanics.  Mine has an interest in
making sure my car runs as well as it can as long as I can.  (If I buy a new
one, the only service done the first few years is under warranty at the
dealer, and he loses the regular-maintenance business he now gets.) I just
have to find the mechanic who understands that interest, and patronize him
(and yes, you can make a Ford Escort last 16 years and 250,000 miles with
the right mechanic).

The analogy is getting somewhat strained.  The point is that constant
assertions along the lines of "the engineers only want a toy to play with;
they'll keep tweaking it and never produce anything useful" are all too
common.  At one of my former employers, a common slogan among management was
"at some point, you have to shoot the engineers and deliver the product".
It argues for managers who aren't engineers; after all, it's better to have
somebody in charge who isn't so closely wedded to the design.

It doesn't have to be that way. It just takes engineers - like mechanics in
the above example - who understand that a deployed product is better for
their career than a toy they putter around with.

We would do well to remember that.  

		Al Arsenault