Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 02 December 2021 20:22 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFA603A08CC for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:22:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 lqX9Wj6pOqsz for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-f50.google.com (mail-ua1-f50.google.com [209.85.222.50]) (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 8A6B23A08D0 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-f50.google.com with SMTP id r15so1406613uao.3 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 12:22:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2+xGt0YHt/xxDp4L1rZx6cxtIsQPmW/5xy4dU+c/D7I=; b=iVmgvNZZx7lNrzr9LaXsw934vjXPAFnFDzPGp2SUh7IlKkgQj4SPIFx5xzbIPqhibJ 2jnsVRhiGDcPFz4U91WdFJKBJb4957mb6h/psaO3DrKNNANVJqTZIL82VRhUso21wgh6 YhvM2pNfDI1hjFZuhE9r7U4kqZP9stq1CP1EM3m3sSFNTFG/8thw0HDMMu77IUcuOtHm S+Sb+lY6JiyzLM58VAkrT8lmO3am9cVJCoMqIW31Yl0pGOpAgrtIoyEtoRO5MygEi2zO iGOucRSEtMB1ayRJUqigxlnB1cDNt93ZRoUWcycBZ+WeqFsHUeRzkTEx5Rz9quVlQe9c pG5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307j7IVl2kN7pHGFNxoB9X0Fa4UiaVyOCkOkpQeADEgEblkENsX kAbWMzktaEV7rnpBVHWi1pKt68Xr6aGcfCJttdUZP312
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfOiUqHbsCGYWyyXGhaCbyOWrNtv6QoyJ02xr09FE6gjwaynhlcz2FMpxWKa9s5xMAfO4cSp37C/2/npWw+f8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:c4e:: with SMTP id y14mr18602783vss.61.1638476551520; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 12:22:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d5dbfecf-4357-417e-aaa2-d810fac36154@dogfood.fastmail.com> <146176.1638469065@dooku> <9ec18c24-97ea-5dd5-46ab-109a64563946@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <9ec18c24-97ea-5dd5-46ab-109a64563946@nostrum.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 15:22:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJLC7ra0oVC1ZPeuL4EK-t3UoPp7R4X65asB+Ti4xDmb4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Cc: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/SwZVZWqADLMpw_O-UG1frpAquE0>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 20:22:37 -0000
Idiom aside (and I agree that it's an unfortunate one), I don't like the concept: What that mechanism says to me is that "you" have one (or two, or some other limited set) of issues you can hold out on, and you have to choose which one (or ones out of a few) about which you'll dig in your heels... and you will compromise on the others because you've run past your limit. That's not what we're about, I don't think that's what we should be about, and I'd prefer to discourage that way of thinking about it. A better way to look at it is whether this issue is worth blocking the document for. What's wrong with this solution? What do you see as the harm if we choose this? Are there other solutions than the ones that have been discussed, where we might find something we can all accept? Just *how* unacceptable is this one? I usually phrase it as, "Can you live with this?", and sometimes, "Is it more important that this go your way, or that the issue is decided and we move on with the spec?" Barry On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:10 PM Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote: > > Applying a lot of context-away: > > > > * βIs this the hill you are willing to die on?β β sometimes can encourage consensus. > > Is there a way to apply this kind of pressure without using that > particular idiom? > > RjS >
- My notes from the chairs training sessions Bron Gondwana
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Michael Richardson
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Robert Sparks
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Barry Leiba
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Michael Richardson
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Bron Gondwana
- Re: My notes from the chairs training sessions Carsten Bormann
- Taste (was Re: My notes from the chairs training β¦ Martin Thomson