ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for presentations and face2face discussions

2014-02-24 08:40:20


--On Monday, February 24, 2014 06:13 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

On 2/23/2014 10:49 PM, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience
do you base this recommendation on?
...
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] Sent: 24 February 2014
03:43
To: ietf
Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for
presentations and face2face discussions
  ...
I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes
present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual
draft (as limit policy).


I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and
even if it weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of
response.  It doesn't matter what the background is of the
person asking the question.

Dave, FWIW, I disagree, both about the "primarily ad hominem"
suggestion and about the comment about background.

If Lloyd had said "you are a known <NegativeCategory>, therefore
your suggestion should be ignored" that would be primarily an ad
hominem attack.  Although Lloyd may have intended it more
harshly (I won't guess at his motivations), the question about
background seems to me to be relevant.  Let me try an analogy
that, given some recent postings, shouldn't be too far afield.
Suppose someone had posted a note to the IETF list or some
meeting list saying "during the upcoming meeting, it is really
important that everyone have a proper traditional English
breakfast".  I'd consider "what background, especially in
nutrition and related fields, do you have that justifies your
giving that advice" to be a perfectly reasonable question.  I'd
consider it even more reasonable if I happened to be aware of
recommendations the UK DEFRA and its predecessors had made about
those breakfasts.

best,
   john

p.s. I agree with your conclusion that the suggestion of a
blanket rule in that area is not useful, I just question your
introduction and assertion that Lloyd's question was improper.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>