IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Doing something wrong

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Mon, 11 February 2013 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 62B4E21F8845 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:34:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E5EMmUFXGj8n for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40EB21F8836 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:34:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A557620E40F9; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:34:10 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1360611258; bh=Cnd97sBWxfCbn+Si2hyuQ7PGHnvPD5npC7ZQTVYb0c4=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lb5nvT2bz2818w0kqg4ErAgnxIuhPyMkcvZAqqHisBTKhIWpgQZicpCbIF/Rv86ZL DQzpP3vJGm90d58GazkpEBU8Y7X5GgBhF3cqd7oGpN45qGAq+RVv1iPthon4WvddE5 iVnxqdv1OKM9H6rqCwT/sWfQb04m0CJf+brx6WLg=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AD4120E40CD; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:34:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org, dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: Doing something wrong
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:34:09 -0500
Message-ID: <1508448.Y9Vk07qtoo@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.4 (Linux/3.5.0-23-generic; KDE/4.9.4; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51193FFA.6050008@dcrocker.net>
References: <CADnDZ883hHwFw2-aPhzx-KaGCzyEuOhjNf1=58DtiBP8rw0Z5g@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20130210133122.0a0a1c00@resistor.net> <51193FFA.6050008@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Feb 2013 19:34:21 -0000

On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:01:14 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> And on this note, doing something wrong and being corrected is always
> >> a better choice than not doing something.
> > 
> > Agreed.
> 
> Well...
> 
> That claimed benefit is probably true, from a global perspective, but
> often not true from a local (personal) perspective.
> 
> Most of us do local optimization, seeking to avoid criticism. Let's not
> be distracted by the example of the few, cantankerous ones of us who
> appear to be impervious to attack.
> 
> What changes this counter-productive pressure to keep quiet is making
> the tone of things be supportive and constructive rather than frankly
> hostile.
> 
> Does anyone seriously think the typical IETF exchange displays this
> more-positive tone?

I guess it all depends on what you're used to.  IETF discussions seem 
reasonably temperate to me.

Scott K

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email