On 3/1/2011 10:21 AM, Neil Schwartzman wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
please list me as being in favor of this draft.
<aol> +1, and agreed. Heck, I may have even been the person to suggest this
clause,
Nope, you can't take credit for that. It was in the original drafts in
2003, it and a clause on symmetry in listing/delisting were considered
highly problemmatic (for much the same political and/or theoretical
reasons we've seen here) during work on the document at MAAWG in 2004/5
or thereabouts, but Nick (scribe at the time) managed to save the latter
clause by rewriting it in its current form.
The reason for its reappearance is manyfold. First and foremost is that
I'm continually reminded, through experience/exposure with all portions
of this industry, that it's _necessary_. It just kept rearing its ugly
head.
Secondly, experiences with a couple of documents at MAAWG have
demonstrated the importance of ignoring the politics and drawing the
line in the sand clearly and where it needs to be - remembering it's
still drawn in sand. If circumstances/events prove it needs to be
redrawn in a slightly different place, well, that can be fixed.
My grandfather went surprisingly far for someone who had only gotten an
eighth grade education. Some of the things he always told me was:
- The only thing worse than making the wrong decision, was not making
one at all.
- If you can manage to get it right more than 50% of the time, you were
gold.
- If you were not right, be the first to admit it, fix it, and move on.
Surprisingly applicable even in software development - part of the
reason I'm able to get away with stuff at $ork nobody else was ;-)
Applicable to BCPs and whitepapers too ;-)
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)irtf(_dot_)org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg