On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:26 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 4:38 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 15-Jun-22 02:47, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> 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.
>
> On the other hand, if someone new goes to the effort to write up an I-D and ask us
> to look at it, there are a lot better ways to see if you can redirect their interest
> to something that might be useful. Sometimes they may go off in a sulk, but sometimes
> a little politeness and specific references to prior work they should read about can
> go a long way.
I think it is also a very effective sieve. Newcomers who respond positively
to this are much more likely to become genuine contributors than people
who won't listen and learn. The ones who don't listen are unlikely to
succeed anyway.That is completely wrong. I could not disagree more emphatically.Miles' premise is utterly wrong.Most ideas are relevant to a very specific time and not always the one in which they were proposed. Sometimes the solution to a problem came up long before the problem was recognized. And that makes it very difficult to get attention for that particular approach in academic circles because careers are built finding new bright shiny objects, the realization that the solution to the critical problem of today was discovered 20 years ago does not usually bring offers of tenure.Most systems are the result of a set of compromises. The fact that X was considered and rejected 20 years ago because Y isn't a major concern is a poor argument for rejecting X now that Y has become a major problem.I don't think that anyone is doing anyone else a service by driving away anyone who dares question the sacred principles of IETF protocols. The IETF's biggest problem has been group think for a very long time.
IMHO the biggest problem of IETF's WGs is that adopted works are not discussed Good/Well within the WG, discussed Well should mean involving all (i.e. old or new community-comer) and responding to all questions and should be proving valid ideas/usecase/references to the community with good-reasons/good-language. The WG chair must work to get all questions answered to adopted work, because IETF is adopting the uncomplete work, to make adopted work complete its evaluate process (should be done involving new comers with their fresh ideas and fresh arguments).
IETF should make it clear to long term workers that they need to complete work within the world community that USE internet, that is why internet is important because it is Used by ALL, so then the principle of IETF is to involve ALL without ignoring new people/questions/comments.
As some say in IETF is does not hurt to be nice (especially when someone is the author/chair/editor of an adopted work and wants it to be completing the ietf-process in Good behavior/feeling for all)
AB
