Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>>"Joe" == Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Joe> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch > >> <touch@xxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the > >>> difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they > >>> involved in the process. > >> > >> > >> If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're > >> suggesting some sort of reality-check process that is more > >> lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we have that -- if > >> one AD is giving me a hard time for a dumb reason, I can ask > >> another AD to try to talk some sense into them. But that only > >> works if the participant has a good relationship with another > >> AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that might > >> not always be good enough. > > Joe> Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, > Joe> which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through > Joe> for the first time. > > Joe, fundamentally human interaction depends on good will. Things are > always easier the first time. Depending on how they go then it may or > may not be easier the next time. > > The only other option is to make things uniformly bad all the time. Procedures are there for when good will isn't enough. I agree they shouldn't be the first course of action, but they are the backup plan. And even people experiencing the system for the first time need a backup. > Assuming that there is good will and working with people can go a long > way. If you have a problem ask if you can talk about it; if email is > not working try the phone or instant messaging. And when that fails - that's what the rest of what we're talking about is focused on, IMO. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf