Re: About Emotional Opinions

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

I don't know who I'm addressing this to, since my understanding is that the name given translates to "name." Of course, there is no requirement to give your real name on this mailing list, but you may find that anonymity makes it less attractive for some to engage in discussion with you.

With that said - 

Succeeding in standards work requires engagement in good faith. As has been pointed out, everyone participates here because they want to; no one is compelled to respond to a message, or put work into an effort they aren't interested in.

Therefore, good proposals are well-described; requiring participants to surmise or deduce what you are proposing makes it more likely that you will fail to gain their interest. The number of people that didn't understand your proposal should be taken as an indication that it needs to be better-described, not that they are making bad assumptions, have emotional opinions, etc. Merely offering source code is not a good way to make a proposal. 

Furthermore, please avoid ascribing motivations to others, since this is so often a source of misunderstanding and contention. In particular, characterising those who are trying to help you by explaining the constraints which might affect your proposal as "emotional" is needlessly inflammatory and, if it continues, may be cause for action under RFC3934. 

Finally, please avoid using the mailing list for administrative matters, such as e-mail delivery issues.

The area you are considering has had considerable previous discussion and experimentation over several years, and other participants are attempting to give you the benefit of that experience. You will find that if you engage in good faith and accept that you may still need to learn more, others will do the same.

Cheers,


Mark Nottingham, Working Group Chair


> On 10 Dec 2023, at 5:37 am, 姓名 <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > pretty clear now that
> > nothing constructive can get out of this thread at all anyway
> 
> There are no facts to support this and it is off the subject of emotional opinion. The subject is whether this mailing list allows such replies despite the fact that it is very difficult to have a constructive discussion on the emotional responses excerpted below.
> > 50-100 bytes per what ? Per header ? per request ? Per 10kB of headers
> > sent ? You just sent raw numbers without *any* explanation.
> 
> This is a breakdown of the compression ratio and the explanation is given first. He just didn't understand the explanation.
> 
> > Huh ? No sure what you mean.
> > Please stop rehashing this non-sense. I'm trying to help you get your
> > proposal easier to review and understand. If you want to insult me all
> > the time, go find someone else to review it.
> 
> He is just misunderstanding and getting angry on his own. I have already explained that many of the problems you point out are not unique to my proposal, as they would occur even if compression ratios were improved in other ways.
> 
> > I have more productive things to do of my time.
> 
> This is a supremely emotional and unnecessary statement.
> 
> It is impossible to continue a constructive discussion when you make emotional statements like this alone, assuming that what has already been explained to you by email has not been explained to you. Or are these statements allowed on this mailing list?
> 
> 2023年12月10日(日) 2:53 Willy Tarreau <[e-mail]>:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:05:33PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> (...)
> > I would recommend that you reset the discussion, and come up with an
> > updated coherent proposal that tries to address the questions that Willy
> > asked.
> 
> All, I just wanted to let you know that I've stopped responding to
> these provocative messages as it has become pretty clear now that
> nothing constructive can get out of this thread at all anyway, and
> I don't think there's any point pursuing this "discussion".
> 
> Cheers,
> Willy
>