Re: Content-free Last Call comments

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 6/12/13 12:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/12/13 12:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> On 12/06/2013 15:16, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>>>> I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they 
>>>> allow the community to gauge the level of review and
>>>> consensus, and I suspect that human nature means that we get
>>>> more reviews if people get to brag about it.
>>> Agreed 100%.
>>> 
>>> But also consider the likely effect of calling certain
>>> comments "useless".
>>> 
>>> Discussions like this don't exactly fire me up with enthusiasm
>>> to expend additional time reviewing and commenting on documents
>>> not directly related to what I do. And I rather doubt I'm alone
>>> in this.
>> You are not alone. I do occasional reviews of documents not 
>> directly related to what I do. But I hate paperworks. And if I 
>> would be required to fill in 10 pages questionnaire about why I 
>> think the document is in a good shape, I probably will stop
>> doing such reviews altogether.
> 
> Much as I love Pete, IMHO this thread started because in good 
> curmudgeonly style he needed something to grump at. In this
> instance, I suggest we just keep doing what we've always been
> doing.

To clarify:

I reject kings, presidents, and voting. But I do believe in the delete
key.

If you think that these "+1" messages are useless, don't factor them
into your thinking about whether we have consensus.

If you think that these "+1" messages are actively harmful (e.g., by
leading to groupthink or poisoning our very understanding of what it
means for us to reach consensus), then proceed as Pete is proceeding.

I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=7/LJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]