Re: discussion style and respect

hallam@gmail.com Sat, 13 June 2015 22:59 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F6F1B3185 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cFy5cYzAWjuI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A2911A9130 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkdm188 with SMTP id m188so13584670qkd.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pq6pA/PvXAlTwxQrp/+sMxPrOY6/LTktyf5FwB9NJWE=; b=yrKMMNE+TmUOt8BrX2cJliQ6clpQpjWYyTevXZzObjEa0qeLTlIa/AzWAZ7cnfRxwt 1Xw+PLXSdKTKldHtBJ03o0QHACT8M1CShMeECbkgvXbBKcPVY6jRdpK/FQqoojXSlzX0 GLGGVhgQS6NVpTvVoD+sk40SttO2lzmy4IYyefKMTNI5NCrLBMyePzWlqAgOsQw7iDUg WSjOlVwsulRaRLiEg1lIrFyffzLpeIM+/DkZ9GBKeAbTGSNV0MdMoHk8TVpaJbdmK6ig uiWrS//RZ7Jg5UBaVj/O37lyM3bc1vFzs9mv2EENAJw5N5HdosoBVa03eghFq0/WNRh3 ciBw==
X-Received: by 10.140.47.71 with SMTP id l65mr27354730qga.5.1434236384401; Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.42.5.182] (mobile-107-107-61-101.mycingular.net. [107.107.61.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id b109sm3880715qga.48.2015.06.13.15.59.42 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 13 Jun 2015 15:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
From: hallam@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12F70)
In-Reply-To: <557CA4C7.4060706@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:59:41 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <158CE1CD-FE7D-4B59-9FDA-F165F367A1F5@gmail.com>
References: <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578AB4F.3020406@dcrocker.net> <48E1A67CB9CA044EADFEAB87D814BFF632D561D2@eusaamb107.ericsson.se> <20150610215800.867D91B2C4A@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAMm+Lwi5=TfVd26QOx6THXCKsRrgKpi9rHdST5WQZ=Ayzw+sMA@mail.gmail.com> <557A27C5.8030600@gmail.com> <F66440F9-6795-46B6-A4C9-8EFAA4CF79AE@piuha.net> <20150612165256.7E4001ABD3C@ietfa.amsl.com> <557B3C30.602@gmail.com> <132d01d0a580$427d28c0$c7777a40$@tndh.net> <20150613102154.GH23916@verdi> <54BFB0E8D227E8EEF55AF353@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <557C9116.2080701@gmail.com> <557CA253.5040001@gmail.com> <557CA4C7.4060706@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xtaUh5fz-7ks5Yi-mkPnJvjZtXU>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:59:46 -0000

You should never spend time discussing whether to accept use cases. 

Use cases should only be prioritized. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 13, 2015, at 5:46 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> I find myself in the middle on this.
> Spending a lot of time on use case documents, and deciding which use case documents you will adopt (the answer usually being all) is not productive.
> But not having agreement on the problem, or conversely having agreement on the solution whatever the problem really is, also produces veyr bad results.
> 
> We have, many times, managed to thread our way in between these various extremes.  From what I have seen, that usually works better.  (It also helps if there are actually enouhg people willing to do the work.)
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
>> On 6/13/15 5:36 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>>> On 6/13/15 12:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> On 14/06/2015 01:19, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>> ...   However, if a WG is
>>>> started with a "solution" and a group of people behind it, there
>>>> are some bad effects:
>>> 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).
>> 
>> I'm actually pretty ambivalent about this one.  I'd much
>> rather see things coming in that are relatively well-baked
>> than see proposals that are just problem descriptions.
>> It seems to me to be a more productive use of energy to
>> negotiate engineering differences than it is go try to
>> figure out whether or not a given problem statement reflects
>> an actual problem that somebody is really experiencing, or
>> if there's the ability to come up with a useful solution.
>> Yes, it can be heated and horrible (and I actually left the
>> IETF for several years in part because of my experience
>> along these lines in one particular working group), but
>> I think we're better off figuring out how to deal with
>> these situations than we are going with the problem statement/
>> use case/gap analysis model, which is really beginning to
>> annoy me as unproductive, slow, and unmoored to much that's
>> useful.
>> 
>> Melinda
>> 
>> 
>