Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 12, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>    Keith>     2) This will not do any good
> 
> 
>    Keith> IMO, that is a valid objection.  Stability in our process is
>    Keith> desirable; therefore change merely for the sake of change is
>    Keith> undesirable.
> 
> "This will not do any good, stability is important, so this should not
> be done," is an objection.  "This will not do any good," is neutral.
> You believe that stability is important.  Others believe that forward
> progress and being seen to do something are good.  I do tend to come
> down on your side, and if I think something isn't going to do do good
> I'm likely to actually state an objection. However for a lot of reasons,
> I think the IESG should actually require people to present something
> that is constructionally supportive or an objection before counting it
> as such. "This will not do any good," is not such.

I agree that a statement of the form "this will not do any good" is more compelling if it is supported by an argument as to _why_ it won't do any good.   Such a statement by itself should count against consensus, but it shouldn't sway anyone else into changing his opinion.

Keith