Re: [apps-discuss] We have no lambs (was: Applicability Statements)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Hm.  I thought I wouldn't comment on this, but I think I will, because
I want to make something clear about how I think about this.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 5:39 PM, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> At 13:37 11-05-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
>> So, I wouldn't have said "useless".  I might have said "of very
>> limited value in helping the IESG with its determination of
>> consensus about technical quality and adequacy of review".
>
> That is the politically correct way of stating it.  It may help some people
> understand what the IESG would like.  However, sentences like that are
> against IETF best practices. :-)
>
> Pete has taken a rather unusual approach.  I would qualify it as open.  It
> is to encourage discussion on an equal footing.

Here's why I think being "politically correct" is important:
If it's someone's manner to be blunt, and to expect that we won't take
him *too* much at his exact words, that's fine, and we learn that.
And if someone is wont to say "Eff all y'all.  I'm going to ignore any
comments I choose to," well, again, we consider who's saying it and to
what extent we think he really means that... and everyone has a right
not to pay attention to anyone in particular.  Except....

When someone accepts a position on the IESG, the IAB, or the IAOC --
I*, as we collectively call them -- s/he no longer gets to be the
gruff "eff all y'all" person s/he once may have been.  S/he has to
support the open system we have, and not be closed to input.  That's
why someone on I* saying "I won't listen unless you say it the way I
want to hear it," bothers me.  That's why I think it's important to
put it more the way John did -- so people understand that you're not
just brushing people off, but see what you need and why.

So I don't really look at it as being "politically correct", but as
being clear without being exclusive.

That's all.  I don't think we need to belabour this any more, so I'll
leave it here.

Barry