From: Abdussalam Baryun
<abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Remote participants do experience meetings as f2f participants do.
WG] If one strictly considers agenda and presentation discussion within a WG
meeting, that statement is basically true. However, as someone who usually
attends in person but has had to participate remotely in the past and therefore
can directly compare the two, I note that when taken on the whole, my
experience for meeting attendance remotely vs in person was vastly different.
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).
WG] I disagree. There has been significant virtual ink wasted on discussing
IETF’s problems in meetings of “presenting” a draft for folks who haven’t read
it instead of discussing and resolving issues that must be addressed for the
draft to make forward progress. I admit that the question may have been curtly
phrased, but it’s perfectly legitimate to ask “why do you think that this is a
good idea?” when evaluating a seemingly arbitrary suggestion such as this,
especially when the suggestion is absent much in the way of justification.
Since this was directly related to meeting flow, one’s experience within WG
meetings is relevant, as surely as one’s experience and knowledge of BGP comes
into play when evaluating a suggestion to a BGP draft, or one’s experience with
IETF process when suggesting process changes.
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.
WG] Yes, all have a right to speak. But IETF, like many groups of engineers, is
primarily merit-based. All start with effectively zero credibility, and build
that up over time by providing useful (quality, rather than quantity) feedback
in areas where they have expertise. All should also quickly learn not to be
offended when someone says that the suggestion is a bad one, or does not
immediately implement it. The mistake you make, AB, is to assume that simply
because someone questioned why you thought your suggestion was a good one by
asking about your experience, that the question was about shutting out a
newcomer, or intended to imply that you’re somehow a bad person because you
made a poorly thought-out and poorly justified suggestion of a blanket change
to meeting flow.
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.
WG] There’s a character, Inigo Montoya, in a US movie called “The Princess
Bride” who makes a statement in the movie that some parts of the internet are
fond of quoting during arguments, “you keep using that word… I do not think it
means what you think it does.” As you can see from the discussion on this
thread, even with good definitions of ad hominem, we don’t have any sort of
agreement that the response in question was indeed an ad hominem attack on you,
and I can’t really speak to any of the previous incidents I think you’re
vaguely referencing here because I don’t have any personal knowledge of the
circumstances.
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 hominems.
WG] this isn’t about experience. This is about credibility, as well as good
ideas vs bad ones, and how they are presented. When people question an unknown
(to them) person's experience within IETF, they’re often doing it in order to
try to give you the benefit of the doubt (I.e. Be patient and give guidance
while a new person learns). I personally have been the beneficiary of that many
times, from many experienced participants, both on-list and off, and both in
matters of technology and in IETF process and culture. However, based on your
previous posts to this list, and many different participants’ replies to you,
you seem to be very quick to be offended by this as a perceived slight, rather
than willing to avail yourself of the patience and guidance offered and more
importantly, change your methods in response to that guidance.
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,
WG] I agree with the first statement, but not the second. After 2 years,
you’re not really a newcomer anymore, are you?
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.
WG] And as noted above, that is certainly your right as a participant. However,
I sincerely hope that newcomers will not heed this (bad) advice, as your
experience is not typical, and I flatly reject your assertion that the IETF and
the way that its participants have treated you is primarily to blame for your
difficulties in participating in the IETF. Newcomers often have great feedback,
especially regarding technical issues about which they have expertise, but they
should not feel discouraged if their feedback is not always implemented nor
assume that the reason their feedback is not implemented is because they are a
newcomer. Further, when it comes to IETF process and culture, it’s hard for
even experienced IETFers to effect change, even with good, well-justiified
ideas based on years of experience within the existing process and culture, so
in that case, It’s not just you.
I wish you luck in London, may it be a valuable learning experience for you, as
well as an opportunity to forge some good working relationships with other
participants.
Wes George
Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no
control over it.
-----------
________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and
any printout.