Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
grenville armitage writes:
Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense
of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or
clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF.
Then I suppose that threads such as "Meeting Survey Results," which
have nothing to do with these goals, are out of order?
On *this* list, my attitude is to be more tolerant about scope; the test
is RFC 3005, and that is deliberately liberal.
On WG lists, and specialist lists of other kinds, the test is relevance
to the charter or purpose, and that is much narrower.
Of course, it goes without saying that insults and unprofessional
language of any kind are to be avoided on all lists; and sarcasm and
irony can easily be misunderstood.
Decisions as to what counts as "constructive" are subjective, unfortunately.
They are, but one thing that is clearly not constructive is endless
debate over issues where the responsible chair or moderator has already
declared a rough consensus. As others have pointed out, rough consensus
is different from unanimity. Once we have established rough consensus
in the IETF, we accept it and move on. That means some people accepting
things they don't agree with.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf