Re: Why the 822bis grammar is so painful

At 12:02 AM 2/12/99 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> on removing the tokenizer. Nobody else on DRUMS seems to remember ever
> supporting Resnick's removal of the tokenizer.
Again, Dan, you are making a statement that goes beyond the facts.  It's 
curious how consistently you do that.
Only one person has made an explicit statement about their memory of the 
precise details.  (It wasn't me, because I'm not willing to go down that 
rat-hole with you.)  Yet you persist in making a positive claim of group 
failed memories.
What IS a fact is that your recent efforts have received NOT ONE message of 
support from anyone else.  Since this has gone on for a some days already, 
there should have been some other mail in support of your claims and none 
has appeared.
This creates a prima facie case for declaring your objections to lack 
working group support.  Hence, it provides that much more basis for 
terminating the endless delay the working group has suffered through and, 
instead, for shipping its product.
If the documents are so horribly flawed, as you believe, there will be 
clear evidence from the community.
> How can _I_ prevent publication? I'm not in charge of the specs. I've
> merely been pointing out problems.
A penalty for the IETF's approach to openness is that it must and does bend 
over backwards to attend to all input.  Many participants even feel 
obligated to put up with all manner of personal crap, just so there is 
sufficient technical due diligence.
My own, whimsical phrasing is that the IETF is quite good at putting up 
with people who are obnoxious or ignorant... but not both.  Only when a 
person shows a very sustained pattern of being both are they (finally) 
largely ignored.
Alas, you frequently provide legitimate input, however difficult it is to 
handle the packaging it comes in.  Most of us are obnoxious only part of 
the time, or at least we are not obnoxious ALL of the time.
Only rarely do we experience someone who seems to lack any control at 
all.  (Hope springs eternal.  About 25 years ago, the community experienced 
its first email non-stop flamer, and he seemed unable to control it, but 
things eventually got much better; it only took him about 18 years to calm 
down.  By contrast, some of us have always had SOME control, but never 
quite graduate to developing ENOUGH...)
In any event, the group's desire to do good work obligates it to attend to 
that input, in spite of the real and deep pain of dealing with that packaging.
But part of the social contract of participating in an effort like this is 
a community desire to make forward progress, while giving credence to all 
participants.  This requires real and difficult compromise by ALL 
participants, which often means losing particular battles that one or 
another person feels is important.
In other words, the social contract is to choose the battles, balancing 
various factors.  Someone who only lobbies for their own point of view and 
who shows no willingness to compromise and participate in the rest of the 
balancing act is inherently problematic.
IETF specifications are always flawed.  They are always compromises.  There 
is always room for improvement.  As with any development effort, it becomes 
necessary to balance the problems of the flaws with the need to ship product.
> It's not my fault that, for example, Klensin is continuning to ignore
Alas, Dan, nothing is ever YOUR fault.  Worse, you always see things as 
SOMEONE's "fault".  You always translate issues into ad hominems.
> No. When you talk about every use of a person's name as ``ad hominem''
> you simply make yourself sound illiterate.
When you over-interpret the nature and meaning of a statement, you show 
yourself to be psychologically disturbed, probably in the realm of 
schizoid, but I'm not current on modern classifications.
Now, gosh, wasn't THAT a productive micro-exchange, Dan?

It is not the use of a person's name that I am citing as the basis for 
pointing out your constant devolution to ad hominems.  It's those curious 
qualifiers and claims that you associate with the names.  It's the context, 
tone and semantics in which the names are used.  Surely you can comprehend 
the distinction, Dan?
At any rate, you are pursuing a concern about DRUMS, so the topic needs to 
be pursued on that list or with the IESG, per IETF rules.  Further 
discussion of your discomforts about DRUMS, on this mailing list, are 
inappropriate.
d/


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
PRESIDENTS DAY OPEN HOUSE, 2/13
<http://www.brandenburg.com/misc/presday/presday-invite.gif>

Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>             Post Office Box 296, 
U.P.M.
                                        Serdang, Selangor 43400  MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464             675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086  USA