At 03:12 PM 2/25/2014, Stewart Bryant wrote: >On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote: >>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 > >First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to >this discussion. > >I explained how I interpreted that that text when I first read it. >That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading, >and as such requires no further explanation. > >As to the later context concerning the original posters remarks: >I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F >meeting when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that >Lloyd also had that context before he posted. > >So, please consider that > >1) There was widely shared prior context in the early >discussion. > >2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses >coloured by both experience and context and will interpret >it accordingly. > >In the case of this text construct itself, I read it as an instruction >because that is the style of text I might have written if I were >issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD. > >- Stewart > > I read the original email much like Stewart did. Unlike a number of the posters on this chain, I did not review the email "de novo" - or in isolation from the original poster's other emails and considered it in the context of other postings from the originator. I briefly considered whether or not it would be profitable for either the IETF or for the poster to note my dissatisfaction with his post publicly or privately. I decided against, but the discussion has progressed. This chain has been about "ad hominem" attacks, but I considered the original post to be somewhat of an "ad ordinationem" - or an attack on the organization. It's possible that I'm overreacting to the style of posting or "lost in translation" language nuances in this interpretation, but that interpretation is colored by a pretty long record of [personal interpretation] "you must do it my way" or "your way is wrong" posts by the original poster over the last 6 or so months. <opinion> As it is, I read the original post as a negative comment by an outsider on established processes and cultures internal to the IETF and the comment should get appropriate weighting based on the posters lack of experience within the organization. </opinion> The IETF is and has been for quite a while a technological meritocracy of some flavor [personal observation based on 28 years of experience with the IETF]. We *always* consider the relevant experience, expertise, past commentary and general sanity of a speaker when considering what to do about their speech. So the inquiry into the poster's experience was neither irrelevant or unusual. Mike