On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:31:14PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jul 18, 2019, at 10:10 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I’ve lost count of the number of WGs I’ve seen for which I did > > understand what they were doing, and did understand how they could > > harm other interests. > > This is the cognitive bias to which I was referring. You think you > know better than they do; indeed, you are sure of it. Quite possibly > some of the time you are correct, but I’ve known you for a long time, > and I’ve seen you be utterly sure of yourself when you were clearly > wrong. I’m sure you’ve seen me do it too. Certainly Keith's phrasing is a bit of an argument from authority. But! the proposition that WGs should not be allowed to publish without IESG and IETF review is hardly controversial. The proposition that WGs should be allowed to get portions of an Internet-Draft to be considered "stable" prior to IESG publication approval is. There was no need to make that argument about how many times he's seen WGs be unaware of the harm they could do. > Yes, we definitely need to know how to manage this, and yes, we > currently do it badly. Well, for starters we can call these things out when we see them (as you just did), then, as we get used to that, each of us will learn that it's not always good to risk getting called out. OTOH, I don't really want discourse here to get too dry. Participants' personalities are part of the attraction. Nico --
