On 4/19/21 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Agree. But that requires careful listening to their ideas, as well
as a willingness to examine dogma.
And the amount of careful listening required is often roughly the same
for a Bad Idea versus a promising idea. Wrapping your head around
someone else's idea is hard work, especially when you have to re-examine
deeply held assumptions to do so. Also the difference between a really
Bad Idea and a more promising idea might be subtle, as in: if you make
this slight change, it would be a much better idea. So you not only
need to examine the presumably bad idea but also some amount of
variation around that idea.
Too often, the ideas aren't actually bad, but rather are at odds with
some relatively arbitrary choice a WG has made in the past, and that
decision has since ossified into an article of faith. Consciously or
unconsciously, there seems to be reluctance to admit that an
original choice might in any way have been arbitrary or unconsidered,
much less admit that it may have with time proven to be suboptimal,
even as protocols are pressed to handle situations well outside their
original design parameters. Perhaps it's just human nature to be
unwilling to admit that one's beautiful baby has developed
into an ugly juvenile delinquent, as much as we might love that
delinquent and in any case be stuck with them.
Yes.
This is where diplomacy comes in: there's a big difference between
admitting that an idea might be a good one, but has come at the wrong
time, and just snarling "Bad Idea" or doing the "bzzzt, thank you for
playing" that I remember ADs and WG chairs using to squelch discussion.
Yes.
I wish I knew of a way to quickly filter or refute truly bad ideas in
order to leave more time/energy for the better ideas. And assuming it's
possible, a way to teach that skill to everyone in IETF.
Keith
