On 27/02/2014 11:21, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Brian, > At 11:06 26-02-2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> But participation is open to everybody; if I don't choose to comment >> on a draft, that is my problem, not the problem of those who do >> comment. Nobody has ever told me that I am not allowed to comment. > > I am using "you" for clarity. It is not intended as antagonism. You > have been participating in the IETF since a long time. I don't think > that someone would tell you that you are not allowed to comment. Sorry, I should have used the impersonal "one" instead of "you". I wasn't think about myself. > If a person posts a comment and receives a sarcastic reply he or she > will be uncomfortable to post more comments. If a person sees "someone > like him/her" receiving sarcastic replies the person will be > uncomfortable to post a comment. Indeed. Sarcasm is not a good tool for professional communication. Unfortunately, sometimes a perfectly serious remark is (mis)understood as sarcasm. > If the only comments posted are from participants affiliated with Vendor > X I would not write that there is consensus for the draft to move forward. That's a real problem, but sometimes there is consensus in such a case, and sometimes there is resignation. It's a matter of judgment, and one tha a WG Chair has to make sometimes. >> I'm sorry... which particular mail threads do you mean? Anyway, a >> lot of comments come from a country called gmail, which you won't >> find in the UN list. > > There isn't a country called "gmail" in the UN list. :-) I was not > pointing to a particular mail thread. If an Area Director asks for the > list of countries I'll post it. > >> I understand that it's hard for people to understand that there >> is no barrier to speech in the IETF and that there is no secret >> handshake. > > I beg to differ on the "barrier to speech". There is a message from a > French reader at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85043.html The > IAOC and Juliao Braga > had some difficulty understanding each other (if I recall correctly he > asked me why I did not try to help). You're talking about a barrier to understanding. That's not what I meant. > There has been discussions about newcomers. I do not derive any benefit > by arguing in favor of newcomers except, maybe, getting some reviews for > IETF work. My conclusion from the discussions was that there are > difficulties. Of course there are. That's true in any large organisation. >> Really? It seems to me to be a universal aspect of human behaviour >> that people are more disciplined and careful when speaking in >> public than when speaking in private. If my private opinion is that >> some IETF work is "Yuck", "Pointless", or "Relatively harmless" >> (examples from my private notes) I am unlikely to say so in public. >> I would use more analytic language. > > I posted that message to ietf@xxxxxxxx by mistake. > > If I was having a discussion with someone I am familiar with about > another person's draft I might write "relatively harmless". I have > never sent a private message to an author saying "Yuck". Please note > that I am not saying that the word is inappropriate. > > If there is a pattern of insulting (private) comments from a person(s) > who speaks nicely in public, would the regular IETF participant be aware > of that? That is what I thought about when I responded to the "I trust > that doesn't surprise anyone." written by John Klensin. I really think most humans would be aware of that. I don't see anything specific to the IETF in such inconsistency. Regards Brian