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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>
To: "Barry Leiba" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:51 PM
> 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.

I didn't realise you were writing this in the role of AD but, even so,
I think that you are wrong.  I never used to post messages to say that I
had read and supported the advancement of an I-D, but, increasingly,
I see plaintive notes from WG Chairs to the effect that nothing is going
to happen unless and until someone posts something, and that a note
saying 'I have read and support this document' is helpful.

So I have started posting such notes and will continue to do so
(although I usually manage to point out a few grammatical errors at
the same time).  If ADs do not want to see them - tough - you
will just have to black list my mail:-)

WG Chairs will normally have had the opportunity to recognise my
e-mail address since, normally, I will have participated in the
discussions beforehand.  Perhaps the problem with ADs is that
they do not have the time to follow the mail list discussions as
much as they might and so are not familiar with the posters.

Tom Petch

> > 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]
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss