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)?
there are waste of time in meetings within WGs needs to be solved or having good procedures for best productive meetings
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 am not surprised also, however, I got surprise of IETF when adopted work/idea (with Good ideas and with experience participants editing and long hard work of real WG time/meeting) got stoped or killed by the same adopted-WG with no Good reasons/ideas or maybe I don't know real reason until now (is it as this thread-subject says damaged control). The damage had many reflections and surely was waste of time of discussions for that adopted-idea/doc which is sad or bad (hopefully should never happen again if well managed).
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.
Technologies is all about new ideas and new adaptations, and most probably that can come from new WG or new comers, so itef motivate new WG and motivate new participants to produce then you will get new ideas, the best trick should be used can be that real rejection is IESG rejections. So WG rejects only the adoptation to spend time or to sponsor the work, the idea rejection is mostly a decision of IESG of adopted-ideas (that is why new ideas should be shown to AD related before starting calling for adoptation). The bad trick is that WGs adopt without real review-ability or real discussions related to such ideas especially from old-comers or experience ietf-editors.
The best mode in ietf maybe to get to find group of good people interested to work/discuss on an idea/doc while having a friendly-advise from AD related.
AB
