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

Randy Presuhn <> Mon, 19 April 2021 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10A43A4342 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.02
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VtO8c-wKKRW3 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44E083A433B for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z16so25087573pga.1 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=czsP9+KwpiJANLzd1GSHtqg9ILGZC8SViRRhkLhspeg=; b=Awx3eNNyd19D+r+6kjpi98zEBZfVYTruTeiVaUP7RohFUnhoxlm6FWglcSaHO0c9OP dxXZr9j7T8NuObUyBXgGv1Sbrernk+pGVzXMgJ+XHnPvnZYGgt5xdqDx6ClYKfDwRv/V ad5EfGWGoMB805qhg1INc0eegRy/gCXXB0Ym/BgsUic5O4JEV8cX/vjXJVCGvbZXhIpY Ee6Fg4rEuj/rBCn2tYfNdzREiMUKve/bJk11Jt0RECfMKqJ327hX1QGoPo5+sYY3UEpg FXFqzZjnrQoZlJEB+8eKCG8B0i5HEAczOymiSSLNLE2b07ELADZLDMi6i6LHY4oQrKr1 ZMxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533u5flwL3XvId5HmoufeIvWF9I8jvWF5HQN3Sj+mriIpKiEy0w2 7U4bO8qTol6Mt8NAoTLztplPkiD9Uwo6Zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz0KDCCL5bOy9j+i3ixoY9ZrRCa48SwLkLDOxmMK9k0z24I4krh+H57MTzs0QO80GM96DhIIw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:ee09:0:b029:247:56aa:dfa6 with SMTP id e9-20020a62ee090000b029024756aadfa6mr21740643pfi.69.1618864979398; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:646:9300:791:f02e:f58a:abfe:20bc? ([2601:646:9300:791:f02e:f58a:abfe:20bc]) by with ESMTPSA id n16sm303884pjv.32.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
References: <> <> <>
From: Randy Presuhn <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:42:58 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:43:05 -0000

Hi -

I hate to post twice in one day, but...

On 2021-04-19 12:46 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
> - What is "snarling" anyway, and are we all talking about the same 
> thing?   Is snarling any kind of unpleasant feedback, or what?

Ancient examples that came to *my* mind when the word first came up in
this discussion:

    - in discussion of features to be considered in developing version 2
      of a protocol, WG chairs and even ADs squelching discussing of
      certain ideas with "bzzzt, thank you for playing."  (With the
      clear implication they really just wished the participant would
      go away.)

    - declarations by leadership that certain technology paths were
      not to be discussed, not even in a BOF (with recognition by
      many participants that those paths would be problematic for
      the business interests of some of those leaders)

    - snide remarks about the technology choices made by other
      organizations, and "guilt by association" when any attempt
      is made to leverage "outside" technology or models

> - Is the problem really the language we use to discourage (presumably) 
> Bad Ideas, or is it that we discourage them at all? Even if we improve 
> our language for discouraging Bad Ideas (which IMO is worth trying), 
> will we still be discouraging newcomers? Maybe not as much?   Are there 
> occurrences of snarling which aren't about discouraging (presumably) Bad 
> Ideas?

Usually the "snarling" I've witnessed was from folks who seemed to think
their power/position/status was threatened.  It often looked like they
were defending a technically questionable position with what amounted to
an appeal to authority.  But for some folks it seems to become a habit:
even when there is a strong technical footing for their argument, they 
resort to the snide "insider" comment as the quickest way to move the
discussion along, rather than making the strong technical argument
they could have made, or admitting that the proposal might make sense
if we were designing things tabula rasa, but would be problematic in
the current ecosystem.