On Sep 12, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Keith" == Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com> writes:
Keith> 2) This will not do any good
Keith> IMO, that is a valid objection. Stability in our process is
Keith> desirable; therefore change merely for the sake of change is
Keith> undesirable.
"This will not do any good, stability is important, so this should not
be done," is an objection. "This will not do any good," is neutral.
You believe that stability is important. Others believe that forward
progress and being seen to do something are good. I do tend to come
down on your side, and if I think something isn't going to do do good
I'm likely to actually state an objection. However for a lot of reasons,
I think the IESG should actually require people to present something
that is constructionally supportive or an objection before counting it
as such. "This will not do any good," is not such.
I agree that a statement of the form "this will not do any good" is more
compelling if it is supported by an argument as to _why_ it won't do any good.
Such a statement by itself should count against consensus, but it shouldn't
sway anyone else into changing his opinion.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf