On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me as
the consensus caller. And it is rude.
Since you've made this a formal process point, I'll ask you to
substantiate it carefully and also formally. The implication of your
assessment is that IETF participants must not comment on the utility
of comments by others.
That's not what I said, and in fact if you look at the line immediately
following what you quoted, you will see that I said:
It's perfectly reasonable to say, "This would constitute a new
requirement and I don't think there is a good justification to pursue
that line."
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is
unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community,
the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not
participating in the conversation. If you think that the conversation
has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager
of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you
like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the
tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable
rhetorical mode.
I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing
to do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does
not sound like Procrustean political correctness.
I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you
believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude
comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least.
For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it
and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread
is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort
and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities,
including published research data.
I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the
objectors are ignoring operational realities. Perhaps they are. But the
fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look
at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are
several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important
to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Maybe they simply don't
have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something
essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many
times.
A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and
destabilizing consumption of IETF resources. In fact an important
problem with the alternate wording, such as you offered, is that it
implies a possible utility in the thread that does not exist.
It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of
a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a
bad result has occurred, especially if the tactic used to end the
discussion was sarcasm to chase people away from the discussion. You are
looking at only the little picture. The consensus might end up on the
rough side, but having the conversation has utility in and of itself.
I find your "edge" much more disruptive to the conversation, making it
much more adversarial than explanatory, and damaging the consensus that
might be built. I think that lowers the utility of the output tremendously.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
