On 6/15/22 16:12, Miles Fidelman wrote:
It strikes me that hard-nosed questioning & design review are a good
sieve - folks who do their homework, and want to get results, tend to
welcome hard-nosed review & comment. They tend to welcome hard
questions, as well as brutal design review & editing. When caught in
a dumb mistake, or have something obvious pointed out, their response
is likely to be a face plant.
Someone who's done their homework, and is looking for honest feedback,
deserves politeness & constructive response. These are the future of
the Internet.
And true newbies, asking honest questions - deserve a bit of
kindness. They're trying. (Though "participation trophies" don't
really help them to push themselves & develop.)
[etc.]
I've seen very experienced and knowledgeable IETF participants propose
dangerously naive ideas and waste tremendous amounts of others'
extremely valuable time (that they collectively paid tens of thousands
of dollars for). I've also seen very experienced and knowledgeable
IETF participants proposing potentially useful ideas, metaphorically cut
off at the knees by very experienced and knowledgeable (and arrogant and
impatient) IETF participants who seemed to think they had a divinely
inspired knowledge superior to everyone else's.
If you get down to enough detail, there are as many categories as there
are people, and the same person can be in different categories at
different times.
I appreciate that it's better to cite vague descriptions of people and
their ideas as examples, rather than make examples of actual people and
their proposals. But I hope we can get past trying to pigeonhole
people, and try to evaluate each proposal on its own merits (or lack
thereof).
Keith
