On Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 10:49 AM Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io> wrote:
> 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. > Having been in the position of defending solution A on another list (and good thing I did: the AD ultimately said we needed the change) I think there's more to be said here. Just sending support for B and shutting up doesn't really advance a consensus process or engage with the technical discussions. In the extreme its throwing the wheel out the car window when playing chicken. Its particularly bad if it's a few major implementations who are pushing something that doesn't take into account the interests of other participants without the same constraints. This is where some of our most contentious discussions happen, and that's not really a solveable problem without changing what rough consensus means. > 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
