Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Tue, 05 April 2011 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F5528C0FE for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vIiwLTDUKnPp for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep19.mx.upcmail.net (fep19.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.39]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1469E28C0E4 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:18:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge01.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep19-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20110405132027.JDVG14354.viefep19-int.chello.at@edge01.upcmail.net> for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:20:27 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge01.upcmail.net with edge id TpLS1g00n0FlQed01pLTA1; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:20:27 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Q76BF-0000k1-MI for vwrap@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:20:26 +0200
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 15:20:25 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110405152025.26ba8f77@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=hL5YTAW9_V7EA3C3fiknU0o_ARA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <AANLkTimcMbrJzXYTvs0cszn+rhH4ygEPvzvLwu94gr-4@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hL5YTAW9_V7EA3C3fiknU0o_ARA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Nww7yNiXF4C1XGF+VcigPkOcTpD8wJaI1KQuZlH5eEk= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=iq1A7DzuAAAA:8 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=C8UJIPsWbgAKlrHuwrEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:18:53 -0000

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 23:02:14 -0400
Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's not an argument against flexibility. But I do question why we
> need to have consensus on this abstract meta-issue? Do we really need
> explicit written consensus on overly general principles like
> "flexibility is good", or "scalability is good" or "sunshine and
> puppies are good" to make progress? Specific features and details will
> or will not become part of the protocol based on their merits.

Clearly we do: we already can't reach consensus on
something as logical (aka Spock) and trivial as my very first
meta-issue as you call it. That baffles me, and to be
honest, that alone is reason again for me to abandon this
project.

It is ridiculous that not everyone just said: Aye / Ok / Of course /
trivial!

I can only guess to the reasons (varying from stupidity (you'd never
see such reactions on a mailinglist with math researchers) to paranoia),
but it definitely is working against any progress.

The discussions (and non-progress) on this mailinglist makes me
think of a book I once called read, "Surely you're joking, Mr.Feynman"
(http://buffman.net/ebooks/Richard_P_Feynman-Surely_Youre_Joking_Mr_Feynman_v5.pdf
about page 67, starting with "This committee had men like Compton and
Tolman...").

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>