Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?

Cheryl Krupczak <cheryl@cc.gatech.edu> Thu, 28 January 1993 19:21 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09650; 28 Jan 93 14:21 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09646; 28 Jan 93 14:21 EST
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22276; 28 Jan 93 14:24 EST
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA07425> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:23:59 EST
Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA07420> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-snmp2 X-snmp2; Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:23:58 EST
Received: from terminus.cc.gatech.edu by burdell.cc.gatech.edu with SMTP id AA06353 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com>); Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:23:40 -0500
Received: by terminus.cc.gatech.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15894; Thu, 28 Jan 93 14:23:31 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Cheryl Krupczak <cheryl@cc.gatech.edu>
Message-Id: <9301281923.AA15894@terminus.cc.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: Squashing important ideas (was Re: consensus coming?
To: snmp-sec@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:23:29 -0500
Cc: mlk%bir.UUCP@mathcs.emory.edu, snmp-sec-dev@tis.com, snmp2@thumper.bellcore.com, snmp@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <18502.728116014@dbc.mtview.ca.us>; from "Marshall Rose" at Jan 26, 93 10:26 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]


Well, I've been quiet while I've been putting out the fire Marshall
flamed me with before Christmas in regards to the Create/Delete issues
in snmpv2.  Mainly, I have kept silent because I am TOTALLY disgusted with
the behavior I have seen on the mailing lists.


Does my silence mean I implicitly agree with the current proposal?

NO, it means I don't want my personal character attacked by Marshall
as he has done in the past and as he has continued to do to Chuck.

THIS HAS GONE TOO FAR!!


We, as a group, have a community responsibility to keep the discussion
on track, and on a constructive, professional course.  Let's get back
to work and end the ego wars.  

Here are the responsibilites:
----------------------------

1) Individual - 
Keep your post clear, to the point, and address the issue you are
responding to (don't bring up old arguments to confuse the issue).
Use self-control; do not attack the person making the proposal --
give technical reasons why you disaggree with a technical point
(it shouldn't matter WHO made the proposal, judge the proposal on
content, not authorship).

2) Working group chair -
Tough job.  No question there.  This job requires an almost
parent-like role.  You have to be a non-biased, fair listener
to all the arguments.  The worst thing you can do is to be perceived
as "playing favorites" to certain parties.  You have to keep the 
discussion on track and gently scold the one who tries to throw it 
off track.  And most importantly, if one of the "kids" is getting out 
of hand (not following responsibilities listed in step 1) you should
send them private mail and ask them to "play well with others".

3) Community -
Its tempting to avoid your responsibility by retaining silence and
apathy (I know).  But in the long run, its not in your best interest.
Express your opinions on the issues.  Be adult enough to accept criticism;
be tough skinned.  If the community shows its approval of good behavior
and rejection of bad behavior, eventually the bad behavior will be
ostracized.  (Then again, there is always someone that wont play nice --
that's where the wg chair might be able to help).


I'm going to try fulfill these responsibilities.  When I slip, (I'm only
human -- and I've been known to have quite a temper),  I hope you'll 
fulfill your community responsibility and get me back in line.


NOW.....

	back to work.


	Cheryl Krupczak
	cheryl@cc.gatech.edu