Vernon,
Two additions to Brian's comment, with which I agree...
(1) The type of discussions he describes are especially
important in situations in which an alternative is to try to
make large structural or procedural changes in order to solve
problems with personalities. Such changes almost never succeed
if the relevant personalities are still in place, and they can
add serious additional friction to the process while solving
problems that don't exist and not solving those that do.
(2) Perhaps I should not be "allowed to participate" around
here, but I have to confess to not liking to be misquoted and
not liking personal abuse. Whether I can ultimately ignore
them or not, they don't leave me feeling better at the end of a
day in which I encounter a lot of them, and I have made
decisions to avoid doing some things and making some comments
because they were not worth the abuse they would engender.
Perhaps I'm just getting too old, but while I think IETF
benefits from clear discussions in frank language, I don't think
the nit-picking, out of context, abuse, especially that which is
based on long-ago comments, benefits anyone.
john
--On Monday, 25 October, 2004 15:12 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Vernon Schryver wrote:
>>> From: John C Klensin
> ...
>>> Private discussions
>>>> are sometimes a necessity, as is the ability to float what
>>>> might be stupid ideas without having them quoted for years
>>>> as one's firm position.
>>
>>
>> I have trouble imagining such tender feelings in anyone who
>> should be allowed to participate.
>
> That's not quite the point. Both in an ad hoc group like
> Adminrest,
> and in the IAB and IESG, it is entirely possible that in a
> discussion
> of the real issues, something like the following would be said:
>
> A: The real problem here is X, who simply can't do his/her job.
> B: No, it's Y, who has set impossible boundary conditions on X.
> C: I think it was Z's fault, when he/she hired X and Y.
> A: Anyway, X is overpaid.
>...
> I made that up, but it is the sort of things that have to be
> discussed sometimes. If you can't keep such discussions
> confidential,
> they won't happen, and the real issue will never be faced
> (i.e. is X, Y, Z or the organizational setup to blame, and
> what should be changed).
>
> These things cannot reasonably be discussed in the sunshine,
> which is why the IAB and IESG charters contain the words they
> do.
>...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf