Re: discussion style and respect

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

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 14/06/2015 01:19, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >...   However, if a WG is
> > started with a "solution" and a group of people behind it, there
> > are some bad effects:
> >
> > (i) Attempts to challenge or change that "solution" can easily
> > cause belligerent encounters.  From the standpoint of those who
> > created the solution, they have already done the work, reached
> > agreement, and possibly even deployed that solution.  Proposed
> > changes (at least ones of any significance) look to them like
> > either unnecessary delays and a waste of time or like attacks.
>
> Yes, and this is certainly a very real situation. I've personally
> experienced it in the past, and am currently experiencing it
> (without belligerence, fortunately).
>
> It calls for an open mind, a good understanding of the sunk cost
> fallacy, and consciously neutral chairing.
>

One of the structural problems in the industry is that most of the hard
core technologists use Linux while most of the end users work on Microsoft
or OSX. That has some very significant consequences that I don't think are
widely appreciated.

I deliberately have a hybrid environment where I use Windows for
development, Mac for personal and Linux for the machine shop. I don't do
that because I believe each is best suited for those tasks, I do it to
avoid being biased.

Working from a Linux mindset has the consequence that the network protocol
stack is very fluid. Use of a new transport option in an application
setting, use of raw DNS records is completely natural. The fact that 5% of
the deployed base can make such changes with ease blinds folk to the fact
that it is a five to ten year deployment lag on Windows or OSX.

What possibly saved us in the past is that Microsoft saw itself as the
industry leader and put a lot of resources into maintaining that role. In
particular being aggressively proactive in deployment of IPv6, IPSEC, PKIX
and other specs. They have not played that role since Bill Gates stood down
as CEO however and that has consequences.


In the security area, one of the structural problems is that there are folk
who believe that the commercial cryptography industry is the enemy and that
they have absolutely nothing of value to contribute. So rather often it is
necessary to introduce ideas in ways that the source isn't known so that
they aren't shot down.