Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art))
2005-11-29 09:52:35
Harald,
I don't think this discussion is terribly productive, so I'll shut up
after this....
Indeed, it is difficult to have a productive discussion when postings fail
to respond to the meat of a proposal with which they disagree, preferring
instead to focus on generalities and wordsmithing.
It should not be surprising how consistently discussions like these are
derailed in this manner, but for some reason, it still is.
my point, as far as I had one, was that you were making a general
statement about arbitrary rules, without reference to any particular set
of them.
First your focus, here, on the word "arbitrary" has little or nothing to do
with your previous posting. Even if it did, it ignores the meat of the
3-bullet list I gave, choosing to focus on a single vocabulary choice, in
one of the bullets, that really is not essential to the points I was (and
try to continue to) make.
My best guess is that your focus, here, is merely latching on to the line of
distraction that was raised in the private note sent to the two of us.
You have claimed that the I-D submission deadline is arbitrary, despite
the fact that people have advanced two separate reasons for them
(reduced load on staff just before the meetings and giving people time
to read).
Notice how nicely you are ignoring my suggestion of an alternate term:
misguided?
Notice that paying attention to that alternate term makes your current focus
quite meaningless.
It also might mean you would have to focus on the counter-arguments that
have been raised, namely that the rule is not effective against
inappropriate late postings and that it has a negative impact on legitimate
late postings.
This seems to be the usual way that suggestions for change are met: Focus
on fears of abuse that a procedure ostensibly responds to, and ignore
observations that they do not work and that they have undesireable negative
impacts.
I have claimed that I think your ideas for chopping off working groups
that fail to meet fairly rigid deadlines are not useful (because they
will be seen as arbiatrary), despite the fact that you think differently.
If you want to re-discuss the working group time limit proposal, please
raise it on a separate thread, rather than making it another point of
distraction in the current thread.
I suggest that we retire accusations of "arbitrariness" from the
discussion, and rather try to discuss real and perceived effects of the
rules.
Already done, as you know.
You seem to be the only one continuing to use the word.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), (continued)
- Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), Ned Freed
- EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Dave Crocker
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Doug Royer
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Brian E Carpenter
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Eliot Lear
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Dave Crocker
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)), Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: EARLY submission deadline (Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)),
Dave Crocker <=
RE: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), Christian Huitema
RE: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), Paul Hoffman
RE: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Re: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art), Bob Braden
|
|
|