--On Monday, February 24, 2014 06:13 -0800 Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/23/2014 10:49 PM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> How many IETF meetings have you attended, and what experience >> do you base this recommendation on? > ... >>> From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abdussalam >>> Baryun [abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 24 February 2014 >>> 03:43 >>> To: ietf >>> Subject: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for >>> presentations and face2face discussions > ... >>> I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes >>> present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual >>> draft (as limit policy). > > > I'll suggest that that question is primarily ad hominem and > even if it weren't, it's not a particularly helpful line of > response. It doesn't matter what the background is of the > person asking the question. Dave, FWIW, I disagree, both about the "primarily ad hominem" suggestion and about the comment about background. If Lloyd had said "you are a known <NegativeCategory>, therefore your suggestion should be ignored" that would be primarily an ad hominem attack. Although Lloyd may have intended it more harshly (I won't guess at his motivations), the question about background seems to me to be relevant. Let me try an analogy that, given some recent postings, shouldn't be too far afield. Suppose someone had posted a note to the IETF list or some meeting list saying "during the upcoming meeting, it is really important that everyone have a proper traditional English breakfast". I'd consider "what background, especially in nutrition and related fields, do you have that justifies your giving that advice" to be a perfectly reasonable question. I'd consider it even more reasonable if I happened to be aware of recommendations the UK DEFRA and its predecessors had made about those breakfasts. best, john p.s. I agree with your conclusion that the suggestion of a blanket rule in that area is not useful, I just question your introduction and assertion that Lloyd's question was improper.