On 2/17/12 1:52 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:14:18PM -0600, Pete Resnick wrote:
The 'me too' posts do serve a purpose in
Not to me. I don't see what they add.
It seems to me that the PROTO write up has a question that suggests
they add something. It asks whether the WG is solidly behind
something, or whether there are actually just two or three people
interested and everybody else not paying attention.
I think that is an important question to answer, because the answer to
an important question that is just (for some reason) getting ignored
by a large number of IETF participants probably shouldn't be regarded
as IETF consensus in any sense.
I agree, it's an important question to answer, but I'd suggest it is
orthogonal to the worth of what I'm referring to as 'me too' posts.
If there's a conversation on a mailing list, even if it is among two or
three people, I do want to know whether other people are listening (and
thereby consenting) or whether they're sleeping. In a physical room, I
can see the difference between "nodding of heads" and "nodding off"; not
so easy on a mailing list. So, replying *to a particular point* during a
discussion with the occasional, "Yup, she's right on the mark" or "I
couldn't have said it better myself" or even "+1" when it comes from
folks who have participated in the past is certainly a good thing, and
it scales in a WG (since a chair/shepherd has a handle on who's
participating and who's not).
At Last Call time (WG LC, and even moreso IETF LC), I don't find it
useful. Last Call is a time for figuring out whether all outstanding
objections have been addressed. If objections come up and someone agrees
with the objection, or if there's an answer to an objection and someone
agrees with that answer, *and I happen to know the person who is doing
the agreeing*, then a "+1" might be useful as a sanity check. But if
there's no outstanding objection to be answered, I don't see what "I
agree this should be published" or "Me too" on such messages adds to my
ability to judge consensus. I'm happy to go on the assumption that
silence is consent. I'll trust that some folks have read and discussed
the document.
Now, this all goes pear-shaped if there hasn't ever been any reading and
having a real discussion. There's got to be some indication that some
reasonable number of folks have been awake. But I can't figure that out
from 'me too' posts unless I'm already well aware that those people are
awake and have been participating, in which case the 'me too' didn't add
anything.
In the small, 'me toos' (of a certain sort) can work. In the large, I
stand by my claim: "I don't see what they add."
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf