On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
In my opinion the fact that this very simple and straightforward change draws
such heavy debate is a disincentive to anyone who would propose other
additional changes.
Often the reason that "simple and straightforward changes" draw such heavy
debate is precisely because people are trying to use "simple and
straightforward" changes to take things in a direction that is not well
understood, or that doesn't actually address the real problems.
So people are forced to treat the debate about "simple and straightforward
changes" as a proxy for a debate about the direction. But because the
direction is not well understood, the debate is also very muddy and
inconclusive. And because some people will insist that the scope of the debate
be confined to the document in question, people have to couch their arguments
in those terms - even though their actual concerns are somewhat different.
Arguments like this do not generally lead to either better understanding or
consensus.
Usually the subject of debate is a technical argument, rather than an argument
about process. But it's the same problem.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf