Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Mon, 19 April 2021 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D07D13A3C1F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N_q7TOa4N1yT for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout5-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455C13A3C27 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE72138E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=cEuR4czxI4u+iWwNYe4W2388N+rVaeq+M1GE4Do8S Lw=; b=ET+ekCX+z9e/0PV487YDO6ZSPjT1iC8kL7ORECAZs2zXcmGkE/7QuYaXd m5cYXyBuKa59bPXr8FMZkPzwrcYOPbuuwyJa2/lweWx8xi+oL0lNNEIcfJM+vwL0 HRtWwJ8gbwQm+AV0bq9yfCnlsWNV0qWvD80NMu8b95oK8nWjnaWWxd/nm83tyeVu jzZCNnHOEnuh0oVo4AcauDp1g45KwCyksJ5/rRvB/Fh2ZuwysLJ10kpy8WcX/eK9 lIbS+ilQbhAbqvd2MZxI+iFqI4dsBtbeQ82g15rcRLE4U8w561MC0e/VBJw1MvTD 7yGYdUgf14pg8nm0k7wfL/r7NrMDA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:9sB9YLapbVcaTfAIw_UEyZTQojfiimFGbogcBgE9Yw5M5SfcnSAxRw> <xme:9sB9YKVHaHAjTxFRrtPDzyPwxRGuXiIJjO4Vzvtu6G48IxN1THwOmvA3DBid0YO4x kxLDMtg4758jQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtgedguddujecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppeejfedr uddufedrudeiledriedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:9sB9YK20BVBAJEv_soFukNdiG5aAloxYsO1Y80xqIjog6g4hkqRNhA> <xmx:9sB9YJZI6Ik0jNuzC16VvbiEi-67Zoz16BLqXEx7XGpZ4eurvaHcwA> <xmx:9sB9YFq1ZHZwMKOHf8kY4uUx-lOEEXmpZ31B1Kyf90fhob4iYptY-Q> <xmx:9sB9YMCaEpVVKZKjaBoVtxuWjYv4dLCJGtCUfsam1zFdXzoPBZ9JGw>
Received: from [192.168.30.202] (c-73-113-169-61.hsd1.tn.comcast.net [73.113.169.61]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1535D24005C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <CAHw9_iKcacK-gsmL9P_yBuyeGYnB44j1=TxF=VnG3Uu65JKJcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f709190-7f44-906b-a36b-90a8a4d73153@mtcc.com> <1b9fd5ac-5ef6-0114-4a2e-96e7a53aa665@network-heretics.com> <cec30d23-6d88-9de9-c606-b6cc2bbeb922@mtcc.com> <3fa5b354-c11c-9051-8416-46859f10cce6@network-heretics.com> <20210416031704.gu46kq46fmp6a3yh@crankycanuck.ca> <6AABB43E-FB70-4FDE-AA59-3D2AE25F4B64@me.com> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB> <cdaf3837-05f5-a260-d99c-6858eb087d28@network-heretics.com> <373f5062-ff62-0eaa-bf12-8c25a510c1f1@mnt.se> <98c8a89f-5011-1f75-272f-5acaa39c7092@network-heretics.com> <f9a50edc-a5b8-c5a2-92ad-f1e8533643a6@petit-huguenin.org> <20d5c6a4-29bd-45d1-9494-7ab214bf8af8@network-heretics.com> <bf9bf645-dbd8-e51e-5f49-b039f0f67d87@mnt.se> <0b63d094-8c95-409f-282e-86231128f7b5@network-heretics.com> <CAKHUCzw5UzXKXutGXEVNjdYeHxrymhahveSYFpzo9GbiQjcMhA@mail.gmail.com> <6a986449-c20a-71b8-fe13-23f8cefa6c7b@alumni.stanford.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <47d6e686-19e5-2fd7-cffd-f94f856bdb1d@network-heretics.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:13 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6a986449-c20a-71b8-fe13-23f8cefa6c7b@alumni.stanford.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4bRVqpFESnKKWbz7-Lgv_M8U2X4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:42:21 -0000

On 4/19/21 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:

> Agree. But that requires careful listening to their ideas, as well
> as a willingness to examine dogma.
And the amount of careful listening required is often roughly the same 
for a Bad Idea versus a promising idea.   Wrapping your head around 
someone else's idea is hard work, especially when you have to re-examine 
deeply held assumptions to do so.   Also the difference between a really 
Bad Idea and a more promising idea might be subtle, as in: if you make 
this slight change, it would be a much better idea.   So you not only 
need to examine the presumably bad idea but also some amount of 
variation around that idea.

> Too often, the ideas aren't actually bad, but rather are at odds with
> some relatively arbitrary choice a WG has made in the past, and that
> decision has since ossified into an article of faith.  Consciously or
> unconsciously, there seems to be reluctance to admit that an
> original choice might in any way have been arbitrary or unconsidered,
> much less admit that it may have with time proven to be suboptimal,
> even as protocols are pressed to handle situations well outside their
> original design parameters.  Perhaps it's just human nature to be
> unwilling to admit that one's beautiful baby has developed
> into an ugly juvenile delinquent, as much as we might love that
> delinquent and in any case be stuck with them.
Yes.
> This is where diplomacy comes in: there's a big difference between
> admitting that an idea might be a good one, but has come at the wrong
> time, and just snarling "Bad Idea" or doing the "bzzzt, thank you for
> playing" that I remember ADs and WG chairs using to squelch discussion.

Yes.

I wish I knew of a way to quickly filter or refute truly bad ideas in 
order to leave more time/energy for the better ideas. And assuming it's 
possible, a way to teach that skill to everyone in IETF.

Keith