On 6/12/13 5:10 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/12/2013 10:56 PM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
Are the IESG people who disagree with you speaking for the IESG, or for
themselves?
That's really not clear already? In any case, I was disagreeing
with Pete as an individual since he was wrong regardless of hats.
He and I do that all the time and both find it amusing:-)
Indeed, Stephen's wrongness is clearly a personal wrongness and not
because he is on the IESG. ;-)
Seriously though, Bob and I chatted about this a bit offline, and I see
how I could be interpreted as saying something IESG-ish, and that was
absolutely not my intention.
Importantly, I also have no interest in turning anything I've said here
into some procedure or policy, even if I convince Stephen and others of
the error of their ways. :-) This conversation is truly about a set of
principles, that (in my very individual opinion that I hope others will
share) we should be careful to not fall into the pattern of treating
Last Calls as simple votes on a topic, that we should not use language
that leads us (or more importantly newcomers) to believe that we are
doing so, and that we should be more concerned about why we think a
document is good or bad rather than the number (or reputation) of people
who claim that it is. Sometimes we fall into the habit of assuming, "I
know what Pete is talking when he says he supports a document, so
everybody else will too." I think that's a bad habit. But this is
(hopefully) something for the Tao, not something for RFC 2026.
I've noticed a tendency for IESG weight to be (inadvertently?) thrown around,
lending more weight to comments than would otherwise be given.
I've not noticed that. Maybe I perceive things differently of
course, but people ought know not to take opinions any more or
less seriously just because someone's on some I* thing at the
moment.
Much as I would like what Stephen says to be true, I think Lloyd's
probably right: People give more weight to opinions coming from people
with dots on their name badges. I try to be careful because of that, but
I wasn't careful enough this time.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478