I disagree! I think there's a pretty good case to be made that if the IETF is not in fact comprised of immature hobbyists, its overall behavior is well described by a reversion to that lowest common denominator.
There are some great IETF success stories (mostly from a long time ago), but most of the best IETF products are the result of forceful and expert engineering done by just one or two people, carefully documented. You can see how much better that kind of work is than the IETF collaborative process by looking at the v2's and v3's of standards that started out the other way.
It's not a crazy observation to make. Think about the culture of heavily-engaged Wikipedia volunteers. Wikipedia is an amazing resource, probably the most impressive thing on the entire Internet, but most HN commenters would have no trouble calling it out for immaturity, insularity, and frivolity.
and then you go on to make a point that agrees with OP, pointing out that IETF members are very mature engineers that are trying to solve hard problems.
No. You've misread me. I do not like the IETF, and feel like even though there are lots of well-intentioned and highly-competent engineers working within it, its process and current overall membership produces results that are sometimes indistinguishable from "immature hobbyists".
Specifically, I think the argument that the success of the modern Internet is evidence that the IETF is "mature" is dubious and worth debating.
(Hey: just to be totally clear: I do not think the string "PRISM" is evidence of immaturity.)
The Internet is apparently in its "infantile" brain stage. Would we notice when the Internet's "memory" (the Web) becomes a cantankerously irreverent mentally unstable adolescent?
