--On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 08:35 -0800
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I find myself compelled to agree with both Noel and Kent here.
The question may
have been posed offensively - I take no position on that - but
in matters
like this past experience is hugely relevant.
...
Borrowing a note from Ned's comments, I am honesty confused by
those who think Lloyd's question was inappropriate. I hope we
can, at least temporarily, ignore both the tone some of us have
read into that question and whether it meets the criteria for ad
hominem argumentation or not.
So, for those who think the question was inappropriate, a
comparative question about the following two entirely
hypothetical cases:
Case 1: You have proposed a change to the way IETF
operates its meetings and have asserted that your change
would help things work much better. Can you explain the
experience you have had with those meetings on which you
base your suggestion so it can help us evaluate whether
to take it seriously?
Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being
reviewed in a WG does not work. Have you implemented
and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make
that assertion?
I suggest that, if the second question is considered
inappropriate and prohibited, we are in big trouble. I hope
there is general agreement on that subject. But I'm having
trouble understanding why the two questions are different: both
ask about experience and the basis for the suggestion or
comment. If there is a difference, would someone please explain
it?
john