On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
> particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
> wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
> messages to the AD in question or to the IESG are helpful. And while "+1" is
> usually bad form, indicating that you've done a thorough review and found no
> issues is appreciated. (Or better yet, that you intend to put this technology
> into your own use.)
[MB] It's not clear to me why you think +1 is bad form. I interpret
+1 to mean that an individual agrees with the
assessment/input/comments of the email to which they +1. Rather than
regurgitate the information, it seems expedient to me to use +1 in
those cases. Certainly, if no substantive comments are made or no
statement such as you indicate appears in the thread, then certainly
+1 isn't useful. [/MB]
>
> Finally, John Leslie wrote:
>
>> In theory, an individual raising an issue on the <ietf> list has the
>> same weight as a directorate review, but in practice each AD takes a
>> directorate review more seriously unless he/she knows the commentor
>> well.
>
>
> I hope that is not the case. It should not be. The concerns raised in a
> comment to the list, from an individual or directorate, should be weighed on
> how "reasoned messages" they are. How they are justified. And your own
> understanding of the issue and its seriousness, now that it has been
> explained. Of course, we are all humans, so there can be natural bias to
> trusting people you know more than others. But we are _trying_ to do it
> differently.
>
> Naturally, an opinion from, say, a working group chair in the same area tends
> to be well-reasoned, because he or she has a lot of experience in the matter.
> But just because he or she might be a directorate member should not result in
> the opinion being weighed any more than someone else's.
>
> Jari
>
