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

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 16 April 2021 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D15153A1B5A for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id phO_2BZrO4xO for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3362A3A1B56 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 13G84YNl021124 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 01:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1618560286; x=1618646686;; bh=MxqsELuPkX9xgG2b/Ln9FPaXMeOE2fFej8GTEPKhjY0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=lPx4GjYip8foQZ6B11iqs9e03rPkFx7NlareltXgBkBly/8CGYUt7dV+hpUtwvpPg 3oRJ6XxRFLYiCU4Z9NkfJFF3luGwgagZvrfV6OIV8iSpNSOE1tLelxKHM18h6d8/qh gaSKFSRgM+hhRhdSPPeaHuVd3ijD7AlS/ucYpFog=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 00:43:13 -0700
To: Vasilenko Eduard <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:05:01 -0000

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.

S. Moonesamy