Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John, Dave,
At 06:50 PM 2/14/2017, John Leslie wrote:
>    We're scared of appeals, without good reason. (Heck, _I_ was scared
>of them five years ago!)
>
>    The IESG, IMHO, is far better able to process appeals than it was
>five years ago; and I believe they're essentially ready to formalize
>a way to deal with appeals without shooting the messenger.

There isn't any reason to be scared of appeals if the WG took an 
informed decision.  It might be better to do that instead of going 
through a lengthy discussion.

>    Name-calling _is_ the IETF way, :^( :^(
>
>    We've exhausted yet-another IETF Chair trying to cure people of
>discourtesy so obvious that you'd get sued for it in a normal world.
>I'm not fool enough to think I'll have any better luck; but I can
>at least speak in support of Pete!

Name-calling does not help in a discussion.  At least the IETF Chair 
tried to address uncivil discussions publicly instead of looking the 
other way.  It is obviously an exhausting effort.

>    There isn't anybody "running last-call".
>
>    If there were, s/he would have no tools to "shut that down".

It is possible to take a decision.  That does not shut down the 
discussion; it tells other  people whether it is useful to keep 
discussing about the issue.

>    But I have a suggestion (which I guess is why I'm bothering to type
>this):
>
>    We have pretty good archive tools availabe for every IETF mail-list.
>
>    Occasionally, I see a posting, "Please read the thread starting at
>
>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l4Mi7p-KJanEP1FuEmCDclo6REA
>
>before posting any more on this subject."
>
>    This is actually helpful!
>
>    If the person has read the thread and _is_ merely repeating things
>already said in that thread, s/he deserves censure, and this will be
>obvious to anyone checking that thread.
>
>    If this is new material to the person so advised, it will multiply
>greatly the "clue" level going forward.

Wouldn't it be better to summarize the thread instead of asking a 
participant to go through a long thread?

At 09:05 AM 2/14/2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
>To Ted's point, indulging folk who 'did not have time' to 
>participate earlier is frankly abusive of all those who did.

It is a matter of how the comment is framed.  For example, a comment 
along the lines of "I don't know whether the WG considered this 
issue" is not a problem as it should be possible to point to the 
resolution (re. issue tracker, decision posted to the WG mailing list, etc.)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy