Mike, Finally a voice of sanity. As an aside, I thought Lloyd's original email was remarkably restrained given the context of the last year or so. Yours Irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael StJohns > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:22 PM > To: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx; dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; Barry Leiba; Noel Chiappa > Cc: IETF discussion list > Subject: Re: Ad hominems > > 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 > > > > > >