At 03:12 PM 2/25/2014, Stewart Bryant wrote:
On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 2/25/2014 11:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
"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.
Instruction? Huh? That characterization warrants careful explanation.
Please provide it.
The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need. It implied that
implementing the change would remedy the need.
What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example,
explanation?
There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note making the
suggestion. Everything focusing on background and presence or lack of
expertise was introduced by others, in response. Hence, ad hominem.
d/
Dave
First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to
this discussion.
I explained how I interpreted that that text when I first read it.
That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading,
and as such requires no further explanation.
As to the later context concerning the original posters remarks:
I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F
meeting when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that
Lloyd also had that context before he posted.
So, please consider that
1) There was widely shared prior context in the early
discussion.
2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses
coloured by both experience and context and will interpret
it accordingly.
In the case of this text construct itself, I read it as an instruction
because that is the style of text I might have written if I were
issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD.
- Stewart
I read the original email much like Stewart did. Unlike a number of the
posters on this chain, I did not review the email "de novo" - or in isolation
from the original poster's other emails and considered it in the context of
other postings from the originator. I briefly considered whether or not it
would be profitable for either the IETF or for the poster to note my
dissatisfaction with his post publicly or privately. I decided against, but
the discussion has progressed.
This chain has been about "ad hominem" attacks, but I considered the original
post to be somewhat of an "ad ordinationem" - or an attack on the
organization. It's possible that I'm overreacting to the style of posting or
"lost in translation" language nuances in this interpretation, but that
interpretation is colored by a pretty long record of [personal interpretation]
"you must do it my way" or "your way is wrong" posts by the original poster
over the last 6 or so months. <opinion> As it is, I read the original post
as a negative comment by an outsider on established processes and cultures
internal to the IETF and the comment should get appropriate weighting based on
the posters lack of experience within the organization. </opinion>
The IETF is and has been for quite a while a technological meritocracy of some
flavor [personal observation based on 28 years of experience with the IETF].
We *always* consider the relevant experience, expertise, past commentary and
general sanity of a speaker when considering what to do about their speech. So
the inquiry into the poster's experience was neither irrelevant or unusual.
Mike