Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 8/14/20 3:52 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> You're quite right that "prominent" is poorly chosen; my apologies and
> thank you for noting it.
>
> I was attempting to use it as a shorthand to convey two parallel concerns:
>
> - if the people who think that their leaving is noteworthy are leaving, who
>    else is leaving for the same reasons but not bothering to make an
>    announcement?
>
> - if the experts on a given topic (the "people who wrote the book", if you
>    will forgive the expression) are not in the room, how do we know that the
>    right people have looked at a given topic/issue/question to ensure that the
>    details of that topic have been fully considered?
>
> I do recognize that this last point bears significant similarity to your
> comment about "community members whose opinions are more important than
> others", but in this case I think my concerns can be characterized more as
> regarding the breadth of expertise available rather than giving particular
> enhanced weight to the opinions of some community members in the abstract.
> The first point serves to augment the concerns, of course.

   I guess while we do not believe in kings, presidents, and voting we most
definitely do have a nomenklatura.

   Dan.

p.s. I think if you polled the lesser members of the IETF you'd find a few
published authors-- i.e. "people who wrote the book."