ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Ad hominems

2014-02-25 15:40:03
Mike,

Finally a voice of sanity.  As an aside, I thought Lloyd's original email was 
remarkably restrained given the context of the last year or so.  

Yours Irrespectively,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Michael 
StJohns
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:22 PM
To: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; Barry Leiba; 
Noel Chiappa
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Ad hominems

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









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