> > On the other hand, for discussions of group governance, I think the person's > > experience/knowledge/etc _are_ relevant, because when it comes to managing > > human groups, there are no 'right' answers. (Which is why the Law of > > Unintended Consequences often comes into play in human governance decisions.) > > That kind of information about someone has some real utility in evaluating > > their thoughts about such topics, so _some_ questioning is legitimate. > I don't dispute that, and there may, indeed, be cases where it's more > relevant. In this case, it's not. Leaving names off: > - A suggestion was made that we consider giving each presenter 5 > minutes of agenda time. > - One response was given asking what experience with our meetings > gives that person standing to make such a suggestion. > - More than one response was given saying that that, or something very > much like it, had been tried before, and didn't work. > Now, which of those responses was the more useful one? The answer is we really can't tell, because the discussion was meta'ed before the question could be answered. Speaking for myself, I have no idea what that answer would have been. My impression is that the original suggestion came from someone who doesn't have substantive IETF experience, but for all I know they may have substantive and directly relevant experience in some other venue. And if that were indeed the case, isn't it possible that "running code" from somewhere else would be helpful in addressing this perennial and vexing issue? > Which is more > in line with how we prefer to conduct our business? Again, I take no position on whether or not the question was asked in an offensive fashion or not. But the way I would prefer to conduct our business is that substance trumps form. And to my mind the underlying question *was* relevant. > I personally think that when questioning someone's background or > credentials is, in our environment, useful and appropriate at all, > it's only so as a back-stop, not as a first-order consideration. And as I stated previously, I strongly disagree. I think background and experience are often highly relevant to a wide variety of discussions, both technical and procedural, we seem to be having these days. It's also the case that people with relevant knowledge and experience often neglect to point that out. And not everyone knows everyone's antecedants. (This is the other side of the Dunning-Kruger effect coming into play.) For example, I have on several occasions been accused of engaging in mindreading when I averred as to what the intentions behind various parts of MIME were at the time it was written. Ned