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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 19 April 2021 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E773A3B17 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.018
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zch66tRPbT6 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 875343A3B14 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC221131E for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:07:11 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=3/0BMrTNIQEEb0fNGUE9nGABy201IBOBM9bZAMiZq Cc=; b=Y7DxlRmSmpa9ypVirCL03iVU3NJTKwyNcagTvYczX+hXQahNcTihQ7pif c4JqxSUOoe/CK+wts9lGNSQCDFMSViDllQkUZayoD3K/V4MnZpKZO6lMsA0mUx1G nw6Nuq3FnWCM81iTvsmq/oN0m0xZpWKKfAiHPLlLYqxE+A+bTfxT0wkBlJdVwScr P6eaGqjbnFk25LqCZZmIdcknuEu/LNJo8cp43Y72b4A8rRQ6GH8GdOmtRTEpOWkr XG1NUkK1JLBmUUD0asORrFyNPm24ZfYpX30KX+rpBnEDP2TnuEnFS2UXTd+1UaiB GXvOU7Fij4RCTKZKMsBPIVUFkQ3kQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:v7h9YDRQUcykM92-46LGBbSIJHX-ymYvmTkPX43Km6iBxnE5u_xT2w> <xme:v7h9YLvyPbvw7S-1X-eglXUznkTLDMrnqx304c6ZD91Ieddla9FixmgmCJf6ddXtr YsZK0_eJOBF7Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtgedguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedthe efgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeefleelueeiffetfeeuudeunecukfhppeejfedr uddufedrudeiledriedunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:v7h9YOfG-ssYBC4LRTXP0aWjssu0VAtOwxRnchisrkPZk2Y0-uA2-Q> <xmx:v7h9YIK74z-_gmARTQsv7jS0ouG_Bq0i3alIiWE16G664atRpSVNww> <xmx:v7h9YMaXagdgufBPXxmDPMb0fk1ARf_VMqrEEj1VoYoA0q-aOh51Kg> <xmx:v7h9YIdniTPTUe5T0yJGYTMqo-J929Yqv2ijg7wISuat3G4MYlH6lg>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 37C37240066 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:07:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 13:07:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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 17:07:19 -0000

On 4/19/21 12:45 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:

> I really hesitated to say this, but in my experience, most of the snarlers are old men who have not made notable contributions to any draft in some time.

Absent some more precise definition, "snarling" is subjective. And there 
are other ways to contribute without making "notable" contributions of 
text to any specific draft: general comments in a WG discussion that 
shape the problem space or influence how a draft is scoped, private 
comments to a document author, Last Call comments, etc.


I get the impression that many people have a theory that IETF's problem 
is that it is populated with too many Bad People, and the way to fix 
IETF is to discourage or silence those Bad People.

I believe the IETF needs many different kinds of people, including 
Annoying People, because it seems like many important issues never get 
looked at without some Annoying People to call attention to those 
problems.   Which is not to say that everyone who is annoying is helpful 
in that way, but that filtering out Annoying People - people who say 
things that make people uncomfortable - would make it harder for those 
issues to be examined and addressed.