On 4/19/21 2:00 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 4/19/21 4:09 PM, Leif Johansson wrote:
On 2021-04-19 21:46, Keith Moore wrote:
On 4/19/21 11:51 AM, Leif Johansson wrote:
In other words, they can spend all of their time politely
explaining in detail why proposals are Bad Ideas, instead of
getting useful work done.
Point to where the useful work will be done if we don’t stop this.
I don't want to either dismiss your concern (which I share) or sound
flippant, but I also wonder where the useful work will be done if we
DO stop this.
I appreciate your attempt to keep sticking to your point and trying
to be serious
about it but... I just don't buy the IETF as the group of brilliant
but tortured
souls who have "snarl" at each other to make themselves heard over
the din of "Bad
Ideas".
Well, again, I'm not even sure we're all talking about the same thing
when we use the word "snarling". And while I'm pretty sure that we
need a way to push back on Bad Ideas, I'm not sure that what people
are calling "snarling" is only or even mostly about discouraging Bad
Ideas. Maybe, for example, some of it is about "baggage" - old
resentments for hard-fought battles lost, perceived insults, or even
genuinely bad behavior.
Since I was the one who introduced "snarling" to the conversation
(sheesh, do I get a gold star or what?), what I was referring to was
coming with, say, security concerns and in my case the document author
quite literally snarled at me, or as best you can tell over email. I
feel somewhat vindicated since they ended up writing an entire
informational RFC on what I pointed out as being a no-no, but nobody
cares in the real world and the vulnerability is still there out in the
wild to be exploited. In that particular case there was a *huge* amount
of incentive to sweep it under the rug, and that's exactly what happened.
Mike
