Re: snarls in real life

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 4/20/21 7:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, at 11:31, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> So against my better judgement, I posted my Quic, the Elephant in the
>> Room post to the Quic list. Within 24 hours one of the snarling working
>> group chairs declared it off topic and demanded it stop. This is what I
>> mean about grotesque fiefdoms where the working groups are so fricking
>> insular that any commentary outside of their blinders is not tolerated.
>> The thought that no working group business can take place in the face of
>> anything other than something directly relatable working group business
>> is a complete piece of idiocy and shuts down anything they don't want to
>> hear. People are capable of doing all of this all at once.
>
> Oh cool - thanks for posting that.  It's a very instructive thread.
>
> Some general thoughts:
>
>   * it's not enough to be technically correct (disclaimer: I'm not
>     well enough versed in this area to know if you are), it's also
>     important to do the work to socialise your idea and persuade
>     others so that they become evangelists for you as well.
>   * if you require the assistance of others to run experiments for
>     you, it's wise not to piss them off
>   * there's a whole fallacy somewhere which I've had to address a few
>     times already in my own working groups, but which I still commonly
>     see, along the lines of "big companies have masses of resources
>     and hence can easily run experiments or implement arbitrary ideas
>     - and have an obligation to do so when requested/demanded".  They
>     don't, you have to persuade them just as much as anyone else, plus
>     they're slower to move and harder to persuade.
>
I wasn't making any such assumption, just pointing out that it was well 
within the capability of a Google-like company to run an experiment. 
Instead I got told that signing their zone is apparently "boiling the 
ocean" which to me is astonishing. If you take that at face value, that 
is a stunning indictment of DNSSec.

Chrome already did the DANE work once upon a time so DNSSec is the only 
missing piece. But the very thought that the number of packets exchanged 
in a transport protocol's setup is *off topic* within 24 hours and a few 
messages back and forth speaks miles about how broken many working 
groups are and why nobody wants to participate.

Mike