On Sep 12, 2011, at 7:32 AM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > Keith> 2) This will not do any good > > > Keith> IMO, that is a valid objection. Stability in our process is > Keith> desirable; therefore change merely for the sake of change is > Keith> undesirable. > > "This will not do any good, stability is important, so this should not > be done," is an objection. "This will not do any good," is neutral. > You believe that stability is important. Others believe that forward > progress and being seen to do something are good. I do tend to come > down on your side, and if I think something isn't going to do do good > I'm likely to actually state an objection. However for a lot of reasons, > I think the IESG should actually require people to present something > that is constructionally supportive or an objection before counting it > as such. "This will not do any good," is not such. I agree that a statement of the form "this will not do any good" is more compelling if it is supported by an argument as to _why_ it won't do any good. Such a statement by itself should count against consensus, but it shouldn't sway anyone else into changing his opinion. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf