--On Thursday, 21 December, 2000 06:28 -0800 Bill Manning
<bmanning(_at_)zed(_dot_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Even if, as Randy Bush suggests, the idea as presented,
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 don't want to start kicking a dead horse here, and everyone
has been (appropriately) circumspect about the circumstances.
Unfortunately, I can imagine, without much trouble, a scenario
in which, e.g., someone showed up and claimed to "represent" a
company with considerable IETF experience (and other employees
as long-term participants), started pushing a technically
unviable idea and justifying it on the basis of his or her
company's market position. In such a situation, if more gentle
means seemed ineffective, a little public berating --I'd hope of
the "represented" company more than the individual-- would be
regretable but perhaps quite justified.
Note that many of the elements associated with much of the
recent discussion of "newcomer" are not present in the scenario
above. The offender is assumed to come from an organization
that has a long history with IETF. He or she is presumed to
have organizational colleagues who know better. Gentle hints
have presumably failed.
I, and even the most self-proclaimed hard-nosed people I've seen
in the IETF leadership, are usually extremely tolerant and
supportive of newcomers who are interested in participating in
the IETF and advancing its work, especially those who approach
us without tying up WG meeting time. The tolerance tends to
become limited only when patience and education fail and to
become exhausted only in the presence of obnoxious behavior by
those who have had ample opportunity to learn/ know better.
Let's not create categories that sweep the cases together.
john