|
Remote participants do experience meetings as f2f participants do.
WG] If one strictly considers agenda and presentation discussion within a WG meeting, that statement is basically true. However, as someone who usually attends in person but has had to participate remotely in the past and therefore can directly compare
the two, I note that when taken on the whole, my experience for meeting attendance remotely vs in person was vastly different.
The question was not relevant, because it assumes that there is no problem in IETF meetings and assumes that the improvement is needed in the poster participant side (that may make it personal when one is disturbing another many times).
WG] I disagree. There has been significant virtual ink wasted on discussing IETF’s problems in meetings of “presenting” a draft for folks who haven’t read it instead of discussing and resolving issues that must be addressed for the draft to make forward
progress. I admit that the question may have been curtly phrased, but it’s perfectly legitimate to ask “why do you think that this is a good idea?” when evaluating a seemingly arbitrary suggestion such as this, especially when the suggestion is absent much
in the way of justification. Since this was directly related to meeting flow, one’s experience within WG meetings is relevant, as surely as one’s experience and knowledge of BGP comes into play when evaluating a suggestion to a BGP draft, or one’s experience
with IETF process when suggesting process changes.
All People have rights and right to speak, but no need for making it look funny when the poster is new comer or still had no RFC. If you say what is your experience to some one new of 2 years and had no RFC, that question will be like new comer have not
same right as old comer to Speak. Melinda once mention as to get technical work done to get recognise, but my opinion is that this way of thinking to exclude new people until they do RFC or do f2f attendance, is bad for IETF.
WG] Yes, all have a right to speak. But IETF, like many groups of engineers, is primarily merit-based. All start with effectively zero credibility, and build that up over time by providing useful (quality, rather than quantity) feedback in areas where
they have expertise. All should also quickly learn not to be offended when someone says that the suggestion is a bad one, or does not immediately implement it. The mistake you make, AB, is to assume that simply because someone questioned why you thought your
suggestion was a good one by asking about your experience, that the question was about shutting out a newcomer, or intended to imply that you’re somehow a bad person because you made a poorly thought-out and poorly justified suggestion of a blanket change
to meeting flow.
If the question was the first conversation between two participants in IETF then you are right. That was not the case, the case was one person doing Ad homenimes to a new comer for many time, then that new comer reported cases to IETF chair and to ADs.
After that when the new comer will show up after large patients, and made a suggestion, that Ad homenime person continues to discourage the new comer.
WG] There’s a character, Inigo Montoya, in a US movie called “The Princess Bride” who makes a statement in the movie that some parts of the internet are fond of quoting during arguments, “you keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think
it does.” As you can see from the discussion on this thread, even with good definitions of ad hominem, we don’t have any sort of agreement that the response in question was indeed an ad hominem attack on you, and I can’t really speak to any of the previous
incidents I think you’re vaguely referencing here because I don’t have any personal knowledge of the circumstances.
IETF is responsible to solve this personal experience answering, not any participant. Just because one person is known or welcomed that should not mean experience. Just because one person has an RFC or many RFCs, that does not mean they can do Ad hominems.
WG] this isn’t about experience. This is about credibility, as well as good ideas vs bad ones, and how they are presented. When people question an unknown (to them) person's experience within IETF, they’re often doing it in order to try to give you the
benefit of the doubt (I.e. Be patient and give guidance while a new person learns). I personally have been the beneficiary of that many times, from many experienced participants, both on-list and off, and both in matters of technology and in IETF process and
culture. However, based on your previous posts to this list, and many different participants’ replies to you, you seem to be very quick to be offended by this as a perceived slight, rather than willing to avail yourself of the patience and guidance offered
and more importantly, change your methods in response to that guidance.
I am very sorry but it looks now better for me to leave the IETF list discussion (excluding LC comments and Review) for some time because this list seems with no experience how to deal with new comers,
WG] I agree with the first statement, but not the second. After 2 years, you’re not really a newcomer anymore, are you?
and I will work hard on Sunday to distribute the message to all new comers that this list is dangerous list for new comers. I may also just make a question and comment in the tutorial for new comers. I did enjoy posting on this list because there are some
great people I noticed, but I will stop for some time for the list to think about its behavior/progress and new comers think about their progress.
WG] And as noted above, that is certainly your right as a participant. However, I sincerely hope that newcomers will not heed this (bad) advice, as your experience is not typical, and I flatly reject your assertion that the IETF and the way that its participants
have treated you is primarily to blame for your difficulties in participating in the IETF. Newcomers often have great feedback, especially regarding technical issues about which they have expertise, but they should not feel discouraged if their feedback is
not always implemented nor assume that the reason their feedback is not implemented is
because they are a newcomer. Further, when it comes to IETF process and culture, it’s hard for even experienced IETFers to effect change, even with good, well-justiified ideas based on years of experience within the
existing process and culture, so in that case, It’s not just you.
I wish you luck in London, may it be a valuable learning experience for you, as well as an opportunity to forge some good working relationships with other participants.
Wes George
Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it. ----------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. |