Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Fri, 16 April 2021 12:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6DF3A2357 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eDlKCMLsIpVV for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0333A2356 for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; s=MDaemon; t=1618575141; x=1619179941;; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:References:In-Reply-To: Mime-version:Content-type; bh=dLoUwXUsa4VcNZhuJLF9NVsWR4+RhHIG6T p1p0s9YC4=; b=O1EmFeYMvasr3sTyI1hEgz5c3tVidKxhTGU2PNAr0hNiQ+xqYI 018tz6aGfh6oKEgQf/jeasVvM3cUQMSo5QsM879k72GT0E3ZGbvYJguMgZkXVzDr mzEeyclaWQf5Q+Mmmx/F5QmBUlwmXY1q2nDPxoGgpD4o1p236P9RMrCV0=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed:, Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:12:21 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:12:07 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50000573048.msg for <>; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:12:06 +0200
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:dcd2:a0e8:4e04:63f5
X-MDHelo: []
X-MDArrival-Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:12:06 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.48.21041102
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:12:00 +0200
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
To: The IETF List <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)
References: <20210413200535.BF29C72D2919@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3701427121_1828562729"
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:12:32 -0000

I fully agree with those observations, and it happens not only in the IETF, but also in many other forums, such as the RIRs.


Motivation for participating in the IETF MUST BE the overall good of the community, but in many cases is not like that, which is pity.


There are commercial/competition decisions, egos (personal and companies), need to justify yourself towards your employers, etc.


It should be always technical decisions for the good of the community and that shold be observed when deciding about consensus.








El 15/4/21 10:15, "ietf en nombre de Vasilenko Eduard" < en nombre de> escribió:


Hi Victor,

You are very close to the root cause. The root cause is motivation. Well, probably one could say that it is “culture” or part of the culture.


Many people in IETF have a personal motivation that is not fully in line with the “public good”.

For example: publish any nonsense to report personal IETF progress for the employer. Rigorously fight back even if somebody would show that particular idea is on the opposite side from perfect.

Example 2: never dispute any job of others, even if they propose something really bad. It would destroy your relationships, people could fight back to your proposals later.

Example 3: support whatever chair would propose, never criticize the boss – you are dependent on him.

Example 4: create small closed groups and help each other on every occasion (without paying any attention to the public good).

And so on, so on, so on. Humans are intelligent, especially in IETF.


A smaller number of people are driven in a different direction by their companies.

For example: avoid particular technology standardization that would be difficult to implement for their architecture.

Or the opposite: push technology that competitors would not be capable to implement.


People are partially egoistic in general with a wide range of deviation in motivation from 100% altruism to 100% egoism, the median is close to egoism.

This is the primary problem that degrades IETF efficiency. The IETF efficiency is low because of the wrong motivation of members.

I do not have a clue what anyone could do about it for an organization of such a wide scale.

It is the general problem of mankind. Mankind is extremely non-effective compare to what is potentially possible.

I have seen much more effective teams in my life, but it assumes selection and the boss’s willingness to do it.


Hence, I am smiling looking to the proposal to involve more people

In the situation when a big part of the IETF community would treat them as competitors.


Of course, everything above is just my personal opinion. It is easy to ignore.


From: ietf [] On Behalf Of Victor Kuarsingh
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 12:33 AM
To: Jim Fenton <>
Cc: The IETF List <>
Subject: Re: Wow, we're famous, was WG Review: Effective Terminology in IETF Documents (term)




On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:02 PM Jim Fenton <> wrote:

On 14 Apr 2021, at 10:33, Eliot Lear wrote:

> What does this mean to the IETF?  I don’t think it means “stop 
> doing TERM”.  Rather I think it means that we should work on the 
> other aspects.  We should make it easy and fun to be here.  And mostly 
> it is fun (of course I’m biased), but sometimes it’s not easy.

The question I keep asking myself (and I don’t have an answer) is 
whether by focusing on terminology in this way we are distracting 
ourselves from making more meaningful efforts to make IETF more 
inclusive. I don’t know what those more meaningful efforts might be, 
but I hope we’re addressing the big problems first.


I am most interested in meaningful changes that help people come and participate.  I don't know if changing or updating terminology will help, hinder or be neutral in that cause.  I guess it's worth a shot. 


My (anecdotal) experience was that culture was the central and most impactful obstacle to participating within the IETF versus any content of a pre-existing documentation.  For example, when I read a draft or RFC (others may disagree), I am absorbing technical content and associate things I read, including words, to assisting in describing the technology, method or principle.  On the other hand, when someone engages, in-person or via email, I see that as a reflection of them communicating and of their personal resolve.   How we communicate with each other, as a unit, helps define our culture. 


I think addressing culture, IMO, would likely result in more meaningful ways to drive inclusion. 




Victor K




IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.