2024-10-25 14:30 GMT+02:00 Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com>:
> • Repetition of arguments without providing substantive new information
> • Requesting an unreasonable amount of work to provide information
Personally, the reason I find the list (and generally the IETF) unwelcoming is
that arguments can easily prevail by attrition. Some participants have the time
and determination to reply to every email, nitpick every argument,
systematically reiterate their position, attack other's positions and
motivations, and demand explanation of every assertion, while others don't.
I know at least a few implementers that don't engage with the IETF because they
don't have time for all that. Myself I go months without opening the list inbox
because I know engaging is a tiny campaign every time.
Two participants sending a dozen emails in support of solution A, and six
participants sending one email each in support of solution B can look a lot
like there is no consensus, or that there is consensus for solution A,
especially if not all objections to solution B are painstakingly addressed.
I think this is what these two points in the reminder are getting at, but I am
curious how moderating such behavior would look like, because every individual
instance can be defended by arguing (probably at length!) that actually there
is new information in each post, or that the amount of work being demanded is
perfectly appropriate.
I want to acknowledge this is a common and difficult problem to solve.
Famously, Wikipedia suffers from the same pathology. Maybe it's just the
downside of open forums and it should be accepted, but if the goal is improving
the reputation of the list, I feel there needs to be willingness to engage
these behaviors, which will not make everyone happy.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
