Re: Bad/Good ideas and damage control by experienced participants

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 6/17/22 21:11, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> A nice aspect about the IETF is that new drafts and proposals require
> others to agree to its merits and approach before it will be adopted.
> Thus, if someone doesn't have the time to write a constructive review of
> an idea, then the saying "if you don't have something nice to say, then
> don't say anything at all" actually works.

I disagree, at least as a general statement.  Of course, not every 
participant who understands why something is a Bad Idea needs to take 
the time to write a constructive review.   But expecting that someone 
else will write a constructive review is approximately like asking a 
large group of people "will somebody do this <unpleasant and thankless 
task>?"   The chances are good that most or all of that group will see 
that task as Somebody Else's Problem.

And sometimes Bad Ideas start to get traction from inexperienced people, 
after which it becomes fairly difficult to slow them down.

I see this as sort of a structural problem with IETF.    Most people 
don't like to deliver bad news.   It's unpleasant even when it's 
necessary, as it often is.  Discouraging people from making critical 
reviews only makes the situation worse.

>   This is a potentially less
> demoralizing approach than responding with statements like "this is a
> stupid idea".

Well, sure.  And there's really no reason why a statement like "this is 
a stupid idea" should have any credibility.   Though again, I do 
understand why experienced IETF participants might have short fuses 
sometimes.

>    Furthermore, if someone else does take the effort to
> write a solid, well-reasoned argument about why an approach lacks the
> necessary technical merit, then responding in that thread with "this
> sums up my concerns with the approach too" requires only a small number
> of words and still registers proper disinterest or concern.
Yes, and that happens sometimes.   But even when it does happen, 
sometimes the ensuing discussion causes significant distraction as large 
numbers of people discuss the finer points of Why This Obviously Bad 
Idea Doesn't Work.
> We have a process for dealing with ideas that do not get enough
> attention: WG chairs have the job of explaining to draft authors that
> their draft failed to achieve a necessary level of support to be
> adopted.

Lack of attention is a different problem than lack of clue. Truly Bad 
Ideas sometimes find significant popular support.

I don't think there's any way to get around it:  Sometimes we need 
people to object to popular but Bad ideas, and sometimes those 
explanations will not satisfy the supporters of Bad Ideas. And we need 
to NOT rely on only those with appointed positions to do those jobs.

Keith