On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Mary Barnes <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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] I suspect it is because it is very hard to know if someone replying with '+1' has actually read / has a useful opinion on whatever they are replying to, or is just going alone with the herd… Then again, which is more useful / less annoying?: Version 1: "I also do not understand why +1 is bad form. Instead of simply restating in other words that which was said previously, I could simply reply with +1 to show that I agree with a particular stance. Obviously, if there are no comments of substance in the discussion then simply replying with +1 is not contributing anything" or, Version 2: "+1" :-P W >> >> 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 >> > -- The duke had a mind that ticked like a clock and, like a clock, it regularly went cuckoo. -- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)
