Re: [apps-discuss] On "supporting the publication of this document"

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 5/10/11 2:46 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Saying "I have read and
>> support the publication of this document" is indistinguishable from, "My
>> co-worker/friend/third-cousin-twice-removed told me I should send in a
>> message supporting this document, so I did." All I'm saying is that
>> additional text indicating *why* you support this document is the important
>> part.
>>      
> And you really think that my TCTR couldn't tell me I should send a
> message saying that I think the document is valuable and clear, and
> that I could implement from it?  Or whatever?

Well, your cousin could try to tell you how to do that. But it gets 
harder for people to pull this off with a straight face if, as a group, 
we start giving more elaborate comments. People who are normal 
participants in the group start asking the right kinds of questions of 
those folks and they get marginalized.

But getting rid of process abusers is only a secondary goal here. Really 
my point is, I want us all to get in the habit of taking responsibility 
for documents; to not assume that the AD is going to be the final 
backstop, but instead assuming that the AD may be a dope and needs this 
stuff explained to him or her.

> And you really think that if Dave says the document is valuable and
> clear, and that he could implement from it, and that's the same thing
> *I* wanted to say, I shouldn't just say "+1", or "I agree"?
>    

cf. Ted's comment about context. I might take you or Dave as saying 
something more interesting because I have a context of who you are. And 
given that context, you or Dave might well say, "(*grunt*)" instead of 
"I support the document", because really I'm not judging consensus on 
what you say, but on the context entirely. (That's what I mean by the 
statement being "useless".) But grunts and dependence on context makes 
it really difficult for new folks to know what's going on (be they ADs, 
chairs, or just participants), and it sets up the idea that what we're 
doing here is voting rather than coming to consensus. So if that means 
that folks we know well all have to add a sentence or two more during LC 
to set a good example, I'm OK with that.

> As I said in my off-list note to you, simply the fact that I read the
> document (or, at least, claimed to) and took the time to send a
> comment should be enough to give you valuable information -- it's
> absolutely NOT "useless".  I appreciate that you might *also* like
> more than that, and if I have more than that to say, I will.  But the
> idea that the IESG might ignore such comments as "useless" gives me
> more than a bit of fright.
>    

Of course the "or, at least, claimed to" is exactly what gives me a bit 
of fright. But understand that I really *might* ignore comments that 
come without context because there really is no way to evaluate what 
they mean. I'd rather get a bit of extra context. That makes it easier 
to point to later.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]