Re: voting rights in general

[Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/26/19 4:59 AM, Wes Hardaker wrote:

A counter argument or technical issue should be able to stand upon its
foundational logic and merits regardless of how it is presented.  In
other words, rude arguments should have no greater weight than nicely
phrased ones.  I think sometimes people seem to struggle to create terse
statements that aren't simultaneously considered rude, but I don't
believe terse and polite are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps not inherently so.   And yet, there is a tension there.   A brief and clear statement can be shocking, e.g. "The emperor is buck naked".   And sometimes the shock inhibits listeners' ability to understand or accept the statement no matter how clearly it was expressed.   But the clarity is often reduced by adding words in an effort to make the statement less shocking.

My belief is that while IETF might well need to adapt its traditional culture to seem less hostile to newcomers, it nevertheless needs its own culture.  And that culture needs to be based on values which promote good engineering, for example:

• A respect for truth above wishful thinking, ego, and preconception;
• Habitual use of engineering analysis, measurement, modeling when feasible, rather than relying exclusively on intuition or experience;
• A willingness, even eagerness, to change one's mind and publicly state this, when better understanding or better data are found  (with no shame associated with having been "wrong");
  
• A willingness to consider interests beyond those associated with one's employer, country, and culture;
  
• A shared desire for a timely or better solution that will work, even when it's not one's presumed or preferred solution.   "The best is the enemy of the good."  and "A good solution that won't be deployed is not really a solution."

Keith