On 25/02/2014 18:48, Barry Leiba wrote:
On the other hand, for discussions of group governance, I think the person's
experience/knowledge/etc _are_ relevant, because when it comes to managing
human groups, there are no 'right' answers. (Which is why the Law of
Unintended Consequences often comes into play in human governance decisions.)
That kind of information about someone has some real utility in evaluating
their thoughts about such topics, so _some_ questioning is legitimate.
I don't dispute that, and there may, indeed, be cases where it's more
relevant. In this case, it's not. Leaving names off:
- A suggestion was made that we consider giving each presenter 5
minutes of agenda time.
Let's look at the text that started this discussion:
"Dear IETF WGs' Chairs,
"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). We need to use more input and have more face2face
(F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before
...."
Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
text construction is that of an instruction.
When I saw Lloyd's email my first thought was Francis Urquhart's
catchphrase, and I suspect that I might not have been alone.
Stewart