I agree to write a draft to help the suggestion of having future draft of
defining an Ad hominems and preventing it. Comments below,
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, 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.
Remote participants do experience meetings as f2f participants do. The
question was not relevant, because it assumes that there is no problem in
IETF meetings and assumes that the improvement is needed in the poster
participant side (that may make it personal when one is disturbing another
many times).
Like it or not, not every issue that comes up can be decided on the basis of
crisp technical arguments. (In fact it really seems to me that are less
able to decide things purely on technical merit as time goes on.)
And it's not just internal IETF matters at issue here: If, say, someone
makes a
statement about the probable impact of some technical choice on the future
deployment of a protocol, people have every right to know if that
statement is
based on past deployment experience or is nothing but guesswork.
All People have rights and right to speak, but no need for making it look
funny when the poster is new comer or still had no RFC. If you say what is
your experience to some one new of 2 years and had no RFC, that
question will be like new comer have not same right as old comer to Speak.
Melinda once mention as to get technical work done to get recognise, but my
opinion is that this way of thinking to exclude new people until they do
RFC or do f2f attendance, is bad for IETF.
And yes, this puts newcomers at something of a disadvantage because of
their
lack of experience.
All have lack of types of experience in any organisation and specially
IETF. Not being able to welcome new participants is bad behavior if IETF is
not able to solve AD hominems.
And also note that when such questions are asked, the
answers can be disconcerting. You don't know what experience someone has
until
you ask, and sometimes you find they have substantive experience that makes
them the expert, not you.
If the question was the first conversation between two participants in IETF
then you are right. That was not the case, the case was one person doing Ad
homenimes to a new comer for many time, then that new comer reported cases
to IETF chair and to ADs. After that when the new comer will show up after
large patients, and made a suggestion, that Ad homenime person continues to
discourage the new comer. I hope you understand the specific case, and then
I agree we can look into general case of we need to know what is experience
of input makers.
IETF is responsible to solve this personal experience answering, not any
participant. Just because one person is known or welcomed that should not
mean experience. Just because one person has an RFC or many RFCs, that does
not mean they can do Ad hominemes.
I am very sorry but it looks now better for me to leave the IETF list
discussion (excluding LC comments and Review) for some time because this
list seems with no experience how to deal with new comers, and I will work
hard on Sunday to distribute the message to all new comers that this list
is dangerous list for new comers. I may also just make a question and
comment in the tutorial for new comers. I did enjoy posting on this list
because there are some great people I noticed, but I will stop for some
time for the list to think about its behavior/progress and new comers think
about their progress.
I think I will report/post the IETF list behavior with its
welcoming experiences with analysis and recommendation in one
historical draft when I return.
See you in meetings, thanks,
Salam
AB