Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?

Keith Moore <> Mon, 19 April 2021 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80123A40D0 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.018
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z1rpZ6Fb6k33 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97AA3A40CE for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:46:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B6395C01CE; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:46:35 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=8GKh4pAFuKTVMkEGfEdIKIiENsbUuK/GxyLv2A6M9 iQ=; b=n94+MIt+mAjHk705f3QeZv3MurD5OxLZddG0zRhEpZuo180vsPrtQdRB+ mmxT2GVO8rXPyviMUmaiB6cimcV8fofktphQ64VPFeTRHLY9mwtLVt5PHIsUDfPL ehOpYDXfWD/uWG3XWiAHNA35aN8+CRZcUSMOKqCqQwOCL/eOBsw3OEprbeIoxRpd gl+MqKPi420Hh97+LFkq04b+rTWcHkpGXHG0whxUZO2X0B55QTTpzmJCgw1KLjfx wahAiXfxRYF0Xq5b0eaj2JYUxx8D19EdKIoZAlI1SSJJuJWwtnqOQeH2feGV4g3q uA0PPOU/qrBfRGvxq1UfzJ+V7K6Iw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Gd59YEBxBnkUY5Rr811mPB3jD3qnwq4wZ8GBT3i-6j0nTEFKmdbvsw> <xme:Gd59YGjUc4DCeUhhC8FhIT7kNzQ8fSJBzmRE6SM371IP2Rqa38Xkkws8WYTO3oACh Q92O58a1KcaGw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrvddtgedgudegfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghi thhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfefgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeek feelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepjeefrdduudefrdduieelrdeiudenucevlhhush htvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Gd59YHk4Z7nlQJFTxNioGBGhsgCR_JZeSrexpaBmm-WQVsEAy6O-bg> <xmx:Gd59YKwtH_CQmNFVRZUEtsaJh-FIFf2MCxjIysp5iNK9yIFq4LgseQ> <xmx:Gd59YJS-Ir__Uo0aTmzgp43zk5W1hR0FlaeGkFpOPzHy_tfvLl_j2g> <xmx:G959YAfEu0TgD_O5YXlJzSPy9IKxF4_iWqQBOA9o7yE7uFcHfCLCEw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 79FED24005B; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
To: Leif Johansson <>
References: <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:46:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 19:46:42 -0000

On 4/19/21 11:51 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:

>> In other words, they can spend all of their time politely explaining in detail why proposals are Bad Ideas, instead of getting useful work done.
> Point to where the useful work will be done if we don’t stop this.

I don't want to either dismiss your concern (which I share) or sound 
flippant, but I also wonder where the useful work will be done if we DO 
stop this.

I wonder if there's actually no good solution - no way to be open to 
participation by everyone without having some way of filtering ideas 
that sometimes seems rude.   We may be faced with a dilemma between 
seeming rude in a way that discourages many newcomers, versus so much 
time refuting Bad Ideas in detail that we can't accomplish much that's 
useful, and also discourages participation from both newcomers and 
experienced people.   I've certainly seen signs of both.

But I haven't yet reached the conclusion that there's no good solution, 
because I think there are still things to look at.

Things that I'm wondering are:

- What is "snarling" anyway, and are we all talking about the same 
thing?   Is snarling any kind of unpleasant feedback, or what?

- Is the problem really the language we use to discourage (presumably) 
Bad Ideas, or is it that we discourage them at all? Even if we improve 
our language for discouraging Bad Ideas (which IMO is worth trying), 
will we still be discouraging newcomers? Maybe not as much?   Are there 
occurrences of snarling which aren't about discouraging (presumably) Bad 

- Is it possible for us to get better at distinguishing between Bad 
Ideas and promising ideas?

- Assuming that some of what people are "snarling" about is in part 
displaced frustration from something else about IETF, is there anything 
we can do about that?

- What does it take to (re)create an IETF in which we're mostly happy 
about getting to do really useful work with really talented people?