% > Agreed. And why, in some cases, it is of dubious value to ask WG chairs
% > or ADs to act in the mentoring process. Unless of course the intent is
% > to drive people away. Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as
% > was ill-conceived, and was being encouraged by a market-driven company
% > that is flush with cash, its no reason to berate people in public, even
% > if done in a lighthearted way.
% i suppose it's my turn to argue for the politically-incorrect perspective.
% i don't think it's unreasonable for people to do their homework, a lot of
% i don't think it's unreasonable for us to admit that quality counts, and
% that bad ideas are, well..., bad.
Few ideas are really bad. Most are either pre or post mature.
% i don't think it's unreasonable for the ietf membership to develop
% auto-immune responses to badness. quite the contrary, it is praiseworthy.
True, but to shoot the messenger, in public, reflects poorly on
the people skills of those whom we are supposed to follow.
% obviously, it would be preferable if the corporate type in question had more
% clue and less agenda.
% obviously, it would be preferable for someone to have privately explained
% that fact to him or her.
% regardless, i want to thank the chair in question for acting as an agent for
% adult supervision.
Perhaps. I might also be prepared to thank the co-chair in question,
but I was not there and don't know the specifics. And I may not even
care all that much. What I would expect is (un)common curtesy and
respect for the attendees and participants on the part of the WG chairs
and the respective ADs. Adult supervision does not require abandoning