Re: Terminology discussion threads

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 17/08/2020 21:55, Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying hard not to say anything more on the topic, but this
> comment by Tom strongly resonated with me, so here it goes:
>
> On 15 Aug 2020, at 11:15, tom petch wrote:
>
>> Wow, want to start a firestorm, well that is how you do it.  The IETF
>> often describes itself as organised bottom up and the IESG is not what
>> I would call the bottom.
>
> Indeed. What followed the initial IESG announcement was to be expected.
> Anyone who’s ever been remotely connected with the IETF could have
> predicted what happened after the original email.
>
>>
>> I speculate that something happened in the IESG to trigger this but
>> have no idea what that would be but that statement, to me, was always
>> going to trigger aggressive responses but why the statement was worded
>> as it is I cannot tell but it may be something for the IESG to reflect
>> on.
>
> I would very much like to know what triggered the IESG’s announcement
> and the details of the process that produced it. Was there any external
> pressure? What was the IESG trying to accomplish ?

Yes, me too!  Also, I see the use of 'The IESG' as a factor, as opposed 
to 'John Doe' or 'John Doe on behalf of ...'; that choice to me 
reinforces the tone of the statement as somewhat dogmatic, 
authoritarian, brooking no discussion; and it also causes me to wonder 
how unanimous the consensus was, that is, the more dogmatic a statement 
appears to me, the less confidence I have in the consensus behind it! 
Of course, just as an I-D is the product of a WG and it would be wrong 
to see it as the work of one or two people, so it is right to see the 
statement as the product of the IESG arrived at by whatever means they 
saw appropriate but, given the reaction to the statement, the 
consequences of the statement, then yes, I think it fair to wonder about 
the process that produced it

Tom Petch

>
> /Carlos
> .
>