> There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note > making the suggestion. because there wasn't a MUST or a SHOULD in it? Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker [dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 25 February 2014 19:39 To: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx; Barry Leiba; Noel Chiappa Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: Re: Ad hominems On 2/25/2014 11:23 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > "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). We need to use more input and have more face2face > (F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before > ...." > > Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the > text construction is that of an instruction. Instruction? Huh? That characterization warrants careful explanation. Please provide it. The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need. It implied that implementing the change would remedy the need. What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example, explanation? There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note making the suggestion. Everything focusing on background and presence or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response. Hence, ad hominem. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net