Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)

[Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jul 18, 2019, at 11:58 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Supporting Keith on this.)

It might be good to not make this about supporting Keith or supporting whomever.  I think Keith made some good points, as do you.

However, I don’t think we’re talking about getting rid of cross-area review, so Keith’s point is a bit of a non-sequitur.  If this side meeting were about eliminating cross-area review in the IETF, I would agree with you that there was a problem.   But it’s not.   So it might be salutary to discuss what the side meeting is actually about.

On Jul 19, 2019, at 5:49 AM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Non sequitur.   Just because I saw a way that a WG’s output could harm other interests does not mean I thought I knew better than the WG, especially in the absence of evidence that the WG considered the potential for that harm at all.  There may also be a writing convention at work here: anytime one is expressing an opinion, the words “I think...” are implied.  Leaving them out doesn’t mean the writer is certain, and some consider it poor writing style to include words like that.

I don’t think that’s a good convention.  I think it’s good to express uncertainty when you are uncertain.

That said, my purpose here was not to say that you’re wrong, but to use what you were saying to make an additional point.  Cross-area review is a good thing, and I don’t want to get rid of it.  But there is an extreme that it can reach that causes harm.  It is not, shall we say, guaranteed to always be done right.