IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Bad/Good ideas and damage control by experienced participants

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 23 June 2022 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD47C15AD4B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03tLXbGjmZaD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248ACC157B3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.40.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 25N8FCMP019781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1655972125; x=1656058525; i=@elandsys.com; bh=mrLDefZWiJF64EZj96hFjceryOzXxTjMpWwg47QFriw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=lZd3TmFHpOzAnt4EJ4uqIzG10TYW7xKqnC5zr1d+IxC1QB28rm8TOWHrGP+A3yh3n zHHlsEsDugGA37HCibJcq9/zPEjwT1Iq17yUV5fCmQvumAARWDW6jfwLxRkGLXM3di WarrN7FiawzQ0+t72hDjIFD09Qh6NFWGUzILc/Bc=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20220622231121.0c978da8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 01:14:22 -0700
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Bad/Good ideas and damage control by experienced participants
In-Reply-To: <8a2a4cf4-f937-9886-5b7f-0508f98770bf@network-heretics.com>
References: <d734b973-2d7c-95f2-0b34-162800180575@foobar.org> <C635EB0F-CF94-4AD3-8436-218A48F107DD@yahoo.co.uk> <9fd0dd16-e789-7546-0e69-e1864508f2bb@network-heretics.com> <fb2fc1f4-a137-652b-0fad-3c96ba5bfa5f@meetinghouse.net> <acf2152d-9da8-d7d3-a313-54970de8ac72@foobar.org> <CAMm+LwhnyU4WO5KcquotLcsj9XFwbf-MU+vFZXmwTmZUmHhr-A@mail.gmail.com> <62B2D362.70507@btconnect.com> <CAHBU6isKGjAVNFWUakm_NBmEkm9exyWFURGbnGdNofLMT0nAiQ@mail.gmail.com> <cfb3c081-b2af-3c9f-3cc3-4e72ebe1d8a8@meetinghouse.net> <27e8b572-a465-fb40-93da-d806b33210fb@network-heretics.com> <8c941ac5-95fd-3481-51dd-48031dda55e1@meetinghouse.net> <8a2a4cf4-f937-9886-5b7f-0508f98770bf@network-heretics.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xHjEC4WSpreNeBkcdJYNLWllN6E>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:15:48 -0000

Hi Keith,
At 01:49 PM 22-06-2022, Keith Moore wrote:
>Such feedback sounds really presumptuous and at least borderline 
>offensive.   It creates more heat than light.

The "more heat than light" idiom is not easily understood by someone 
who is not familiar with IETF English.

You pointed out that the style of feedback could be construed as 
"borderline offensive".  If I am not mistaken, some of the persons 
who commented on the thread were also arguing against that style of feedback.

The is a research article [1] which discusses a "club good approach" 
viewed through the IETF process.  I could choose to discuss the "club 
good approach" with the author as she might be able to share a 
perspective which is different from what I see or I could choose to 
go with IETF groupthink.  The groupthink happens when an idea is 
described as bad because it was tried before and failed.  The 
assumptions on which the idea was based, which were current thinking 
over a decade ago, may no longer be valid.  I am not sure whether an 
experienced participant might catch that if he/she is more interested 
in doing damage control.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. http://r.elandsys.com/r/70978

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email