On 6/14/22 10:47, John Levine wrote:
On the other hand, is it really a negative when someone is snarky with a snot-nosed kid who doesn't appreciate being told that their "great new idea" is a retread of something folks learned not to do decades ago?Depends. If your goal is to make sure nobody new ever comes to the IETF, sure, do that.
What if your goal is instead to try to make effective use of the precious little time you have to spend on WG meetings, reviewing drafts, and following mailing lists (and now github commits)?
Hopelessly naive proposals are a big time sink. Sure,
politeness goes a long way. But politely responding to a
hopelessly naive proposal in an effective way requires trying to
find some merit in it, so that the author of that proposal will
know you've actually taken the time to understand it. And
that's actually a lot more work than reviewing a potentially
useful Internet-Draft. Shouldn't most of our effort be spent on
documents that actually have some potential? Especially given
that there are already too many documents to read?
Given that, it's not surprising that a lot of proposals get rudely
and quickly rejected. Even when some of them have merit.
I'm not saying it's right that good proposals get rudely and quickly rejected, I'm saying that I understand why it happens and it's not only because of arrogance.
The trick is to get out of the mode where new ideas are
reflexively seen as a waste of time, or worse, as threats.
Keith
