--On Friday, October 14, 2022 12:41 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I probably wouldn't use the word "disrespect" here. But > nobody should feel compelled to support ideas or protocols > that they believe are harmful, or even to dissect exactly > what's wrong with such ideas or protocols in detail. Maybe > we just need a standardized, approved way to say "I > respectfully disagree that this is a good idea." Keith, Maybe. But that is where we could easily slip into the other side of the problem. While the language is much better and presumably conveys more respect, that sort of sentence does not actually convey more actual information than "<foo> is an <expletive>" even if it is much nicer. I'm not suggesting that we should try to force a complete analysis if anyone is going to say anything -- earlier notes in this thread have explained why such a requirement would be a bad idea and would not work. However, compare the information content of the following hypothetical statements with the one above: "This seems to be related to protocol XYZ. Based on my experience with that protocol, I respectfully disagree that this is a good idea." "The IETF has discussed a very similar idea and concluded it would not be helpful. It does not appear to me that this suggestion includes any information that was not considered then. In the absence of new information, I do not believe that further discussion would be helpful." "Based on my experience and with no disrespect, my gut feelings cause me to conclude that this is not a good idea." None of those statements in inherently disrespectful of either the idea/proposal or its author(s). None is a comprehensive analysis of the issues nor does any of them require nearly the level of work that such an analysis would require. None opens the door to DoS attacks by requiring IETF participants to work on the a communications network incarnation of the phlogiston theory (e.g., "this proposed protocol works really well if the speed of light is not an issue"). The second would (I trust obviously) be much better if it came with references or hints as to where they might be found, but, in at least some cases, that might pass the "too much work" threshold. And the third, while perhaps rather close (except for the language) to "My feeling is that this idea stinks", its hypothetical author has at least told us that the conclusion is based on a gut reaction rather than on, e.g., hard data that could (and perhaps would) be presented if there were more time or stronger motivations. And that information is useful: I imagine that each of us who has been around the IETF for more than a short time has a list of people s.t., if one of them says "this does not seem like a good idea", even if that statement is based on a gut reaction, would, if we were interested in the subject matter, stimulate more examination of the idea itself while the same comment from others would not. That is not an elitist concept, just reality and it _should_ have nothing to do with the positions people happen to occupy. A simple "I disagree" statement, no matter how couched, does not provide any of that and, no matter how respectfully stated, could be a disguise for "not invented here, you are not a popular person, please go away". It might be useful if we voted or made decisions based on a count of supporting and rejecting statements on a list, but I believe we still claim we don't do that. And someone could deliberately lie about their reasoning or motivations but, if we have to start worrying about that, threads like this are the least of our worries. best, john
