Re: Accurate history [Re: "professional" in an IETF context]

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Greg Shepherd <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Existence of running code for some specification means
>> not that the specification is good but that we can
>> operate and evaluate the specification to judge whether
>> it is good or not.
>>
>>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>>
>
> This, surprisingly, can't be said enough. I've repeatedly heard the
> argument that someone's running code is verification that the idea is
> sound, and therefore the solution should be adopted. And I can rarely tell
> if they are simply lacking any sense of architecture or if they are just
> trolling the group to push their work. Either way, it's exhausting.
>

The fact someone can get code to run does suggest that they have a solution
to at least a part of the problem. It rarely means they have a complete
solution.

But I have on multiple occasions received the following objections to a
proposal.

1) We don't believe your specification without code.

2) You are only here to peddle the code you have already written, you
should have talked to people earlier.

And it's the same damn people both times.

Men should really take more notice when women complain about mansplaining
because the people who do that to women do the exact same thing to other
men.