On Feb 25, 2013, at 2:16 PM, Mary Barnes
<mary(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)barnes(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Jari Arkko
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net> wrote:
Agree with what John, Brian, and others have said. FWIW, at times -
particularly with documents having some controversy - the ADs are left
wondering what the silent majority is thinking. So in some cases the private
messages to the AD in question or to the IESG are helpful. And while "+1" is
usually bad form, indicating that you've done a thorough review and found no
issues is appreciated. (Or better yet, that you intend to put this
technology into your own use.)
[MB] It's not clear to me why you think +1 is bad form. I interpret
+1 to mean that an individual agrees with the
assessment/input/comments of the email to which they +1. Rather than
regurgitate the information, it seems expedient to me to use +1 in
those cases. Certainly, if no substantive comments are made or no
statement such as you indicate appears in the thread, then certainly
+1 isn't useful. [/MB]
I suspect it is because it is very hard to know if someone replying with '+1'
has actually read / has a useful opinion on whatever they are replying to, or
is just going alone with the herd…
Then again, which is more useful / less annoying?:
Version 1:
"I also do not understand why +1 is bad form.
Instead of simply restating in other words that which was said previously, I
could simply reply with +1 to show that I agree with a particular stance.
Obviously, if there are no comments of substance in the discussion then simply
replying with +1 is not contributing anything"
or, Version 2:
"+1"
:-P
W
Finally, John Leslie wrote:
In theory, an individual raising an issue on the <ietf> list has the
same weight as a directorate review, but in practice each AD takes a
directorate review more seriously unless he/she knows the commentor
well.
I hope that is not the case. It should not be. The concerns raised in a
comment to the list, from an individual or directorate, should be weighed on
how "reasoned messages" they are. How they are justified. And your own
understanding of the issue and its seriousness, now that it has been
explained. Of course, we are all humans, so there can be natural bias to
trusting people you know more than others. But we are _trying_ to do it
differently.
Naturally, an opinion from, say, a working group chair in the same area
tends to be well-reasoned, because he or she has a lot of experience in the
matter. But just because he or she might be a directorate member should not
result in the opinion being weighed any more than someone else's.
Jari
--
The duke had a mind that ticked like a clock and, like a clock, it regularly
went cuckoo.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Wyrd Sisters)