RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com> Fri, 16 April 2021 10:55 UTC

Return-Path: <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.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 3A59E3A20C9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Yt5Jo8XVEbT7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 493DC3A20C7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml739-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.201]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FMCf46s5jz68BNp for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 18:50:04 +0800 (CST)
Received: from msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) by fraeml739-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:55:24 +0200
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.161) by msceml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.219.141.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:55:24 +0300
Received: from msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) by msceml703-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.219.141.161]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.013; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:55:24 +0300
From: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Thread-Topic: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
Thread-Index: AQHXMpcx7jUwDUbSuECg6CdElHzziqq29pPQ
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:55:23 +0000
Message-ID: <eadf6c6b7b2a4837b08c9d426cfabf4d@huawei.com>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <7ac5ecf5-734e-7f63-a000-dea09cec1d0a@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5198680E-3555-48FF-9FF5-77105DBC06D7@akamai.com> <52e31d01-c5cf-489f-aa9c-cea327ef03d5@dogfood.fastmail.com> <A3F46396-E636-4B35-AAEA-80FD45242F4A@cisco.com> <44E11446-F3B3-431C-BBF7-FA827E016833@bluepopcorn.net> <CAJc3aaN=jYx3WzCzYzheAnVCR7ziBudAag5L04xBzSQYqVhGZw@mail.gmail.com> <7945b685718742ffaae1d8351994028a@huawei.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20210415232402.0c7deb38@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210415232402.0c7deb38@elandnews.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.205.190]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CQWmuVIKeDE0XpDVxA7NPtC-W9Q>
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:55:35 -0000

Hi S. Moonesamy,
The diversity of humans (for the matter that I have touched below) are very big even if one takes a very small and uniform part of the population.
IETF covering the whole world - diversity is in the full range possible (100%).
It does not help on average (or better median - for the biggest crowd) - the motivation is distorted.

The discussion for what is "public good" is not important in this context - the difference in understanding would be relatively small.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf@elandsys.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 10:43 AM
To: Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard@huawei.com>om>; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

Hi Eduard,
At 01:14 AM 15-04-2021, Vasilenko Eduard wrote:
>You are very close to the root cause. The root cause is motivation. 
>Well, probably one could say that it is "culture" or part of the 
>culture.
>
>Many people in IETF have a personal motivation that is not fully in 
>line with the "public good".
>For example: publish any nonsense to report personal IETF progress for 
>the employer.
>Rigorously fight back even if somebody would show that particular idea 
>is on the opposite side from perfect.
>Example 2: never dispute any job of others, even if they propose 
>something really bad. It would destroy your relationships, people could 
>fight back to your proposals later.
>Example 3: support whatever chair would propose, never criticize the 
>boss - yoou are dependent on him.
>Example 4: create small closed groups and help each other on every 
>occasion (without paying any attention to the public good).
>And so on, so on, so on. Humans are intelligent, especially in IETF.

I'll express an opinion instead agreeing (or disagreeing) with you.

Every group learns and shares common some behavior and beliefs.  We both likely have different motivations to participate in this group.  We both have our own beliefs of what constitutes the "public good".  This group, or can I say task force, version of what constitutes the "public good" is the technical specifications, mailing list discussions, and minutes (of meetings) which are provided for free.  Does this version of the "public good" 
benefit, on balance, the public or private interests?  My guess is that it is the latter.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy