Re: Bad/Good ideas and damage control by experienced participants

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 6:28 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 6/14/22 10:47, John Levine wrote:
>
> On the other hand, is it really a negative when someone is snarky with a
> snot-nosed kid who doesn't appreciate being told that their "great new
> idea" is a retread of something folks learned not to do decades ago?
>
> Depends.  If your goal is to make sure nobody new ever comes to the IETF, sure, do that.
>
> What if your goal is instead to try to make effective use of the precious
> little time you have to spend on WG meetings, reviewing drafts, and
> following mailing lists (and now github commits)?
>
there are waste of time in meetings within WGs needs to be solved or having
good procedures for best productive meetings

> Hopelessly naive proposals are a big time sink.   Sure, politeness goes a
> long way.   But politely responding to a hopelessly naive proposal in an
> effective way requires trying to find some merit in it, so that the author
> of that proposal will know you've actually taken the time to understand
> it.    And that's actually a lot more work than reviewing a potentially
> useful Internet-Draft.   Shouldn't most of our effort be spent on documents
> that actually have some potential?   Especially given that there are
> already too many documents to read?
>
> Given that, it's not surprising that a lot of proposals get rudely and
> quickly rejected.   Even when some of them have merit.
>
I am not surprised also, however, I got surprise of IETF when adopted
work/idea (with Good ideas and with experience participants editing and
long hard work of real WG time/meeting) got stoped or killed by the same
adopted-WG with no Good reasons/ideas or maybe I don't know real reason
until now (is it as this thread-subject says damaged control). The damage
had many reflections and surely was waste of time of discussions for that
adopted-idea/doc which is sad or bad (hopefully should never happen again
if well managed).

> I'm not saying it's right that good proposals get rudely and quickly
> rejected, I'm saying that I understand why it happens and it's not only
> because of arrogance.
>
> The trick is to get out of the mode where new ideas are reflexively seen
> as a waste of time, or worse, as threats.
>
Technologies is all about new ideas and new adaptations, and most probably
that can come from new WG or new comers, so itef motivate new WG and
motivate new participants to produce then you will get new ideas, the best
trick should be used can be that real rejection is IESG rejections. So WG
rejects only the adoptation to spend time or to sponsor the work, the idea
rejection is mostly a decision of IESG of adopted-ideas (that is why new
ideas should be shown to AD related before starting calling for
adoptation). The bad trick is that WGs adopt without real review-ability or
real discussions related to such ideas especially from old-comers or
experience ietf-editors.

The best mode in ietf maybe to get to find group of good people interested
to work/discuss on an idea/doc while having a friendly-advise from AD
related.

AB