On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 10, 2018, at 4:18 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:Hi Keith,For example the below messages are for an adopted work (or draft WG LC) but no replies/guidance within the discussion list, why is that?I have no idea. I'm not going to comment on the specific (lack of) actions of a WG in which I was not participating.my reply below,On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:IETF does try to be open to new ideas. But people bring new ideas to IETF all the time, and statistically speaking, most of those new ideas are bad ideas because they are coming from people without enough exposure to enough experience that would let them realize that they are bad ideas. So experienced IETF participants tend to reject bad or dubious ideas in ways that may seem impolite or rude. This is (mostly) not because they are rude people overall, it is simply because there are so many bad ideas presented here, as a consequence of IETF's openness.The people who succeed in getting IETF to adopt their ideas are those who are willing to listen to feedback, take it seriously, understand its relevance, and adapt their ideas in light of the feedback. People who expect to be taken seriously without being willing to do those things tend to not succeed here.I agree that editors need to listen and reply, but also the WG chair MUST follow up with editor to make sure they are replying to feedback. Also the ADs MUST follow up with IETF LC comments and they should be involved. I think we should look at Acee as a great WG chair, and there are many other, we may need to reward great WG chair to encourage guidance and discussions.You are talking about something different here than what I was talking about. But I emphatically disagree with your MUST assertion. I do not believe that chairs and ADs have a duty to follow up individually on every LC comment. LC comments that are relevant should be carefully considered, of course. But just because a comment is made in response to LC does not mean it has sufficient merit to warrant a reply. There is a reason IETF requires rough consensus rather than complete consensus.Even good ideas need refinement, and IETF makes decisions by rough consensus. Someone who isn't willing to listen to feedback will have a difficult time building consensus. And even when a relatively good idea is presented, community members are less likely to try to help people refine their ideas, if those people seem unwilling to accept constructive feedback and consider compromises.I agree, also our managers (ADs and WG chairs) need to follow with that, and if that is not done I think they should do it. However, WG chair needs to see good idea and should find a way to use it and to make the WG work together, because some WG may be controlled by few people..Yes some WG can be controlled by a few people (I've seen it happen). But a WG chair should not insist that all ideas be incorporated, not even all good ideas. This can be inappropriate meddling on the chair's part, and there's such a thing as trying to accommodate too many good ideas.Also: IETF makes it relatively easy to post an internet-draft. But posting an internet-draft doesn't do anything but make the draft available for download and send out an announcement to a mailing list. It doesn't schedule any discussion on the draft, it doesn't refer the draft to any working group, and it doesn't mean that anybody will take it seriously or even read it - whether it's good or not.I discuss adopted drafts and still some times don't get reply or any serious reaction, why is that? I some times think because I am from Africa but I don't believe that or trying no to beleive.I haven't read enough of your discussions to have an opinion of why you don't always get a reply. But based on this one message alone, I'm inclined to guess that it is because you have unreasonable assumptions and people don't always feel like trying to explain this to you. (Feel free to ignore my guess as it's based on a very small sample size.)That's just how the process works here.You need to look at the other side of the process. As I see that when there is an adopted draft and I get interested in and discuss, still managers are not reply or they may not guide process for listening and discussions and replies from editor,Why do you think you are in a position to tell me what I need to do?
AB> why not, do we have a position in IETF that makes others not allowed to guide/advise?
AB> IMHO, it is allowed to discuss thoughts, requirements, and ways of looking at ideas or standards, use of standards, procedures or processes. May be the only position I find my self in is that I am from Africa (i.e. usually IETF does not do meetings at Africa, but that does not mean I am in weak position in ietf-discussions).
AB> Yes in ietf we have managers, AD and WG chair positions, but our IETF procedure does not prevent participants to tell ADs or WG Chairs what they need to do. I try to follow procedures/guidance/RFCs, but not positions/managers, and I did not find in ietf procedure any prevent related to positions.
AB> IMHO, volunteering engineers and ietf participants are allowed to guide/advise each other, that can be one of the purposes of the open ietf-discussion-lists.
best regards,
AB
