On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Ross Callon wrote: > In my opinion the fact that this very simple and straightforward change draws > such heavy debate is a disincentive to anyone who would propose other > additional changes.
Often the reason that "simple and straightforward changes" draw such heavy debate is precisely because people are trying to use "simple and straightforward" changes to take things in a direction that is not well understood, or that doesn't actually address the real problems. So people are forced to treat the debate about "simple and straightforward changes" as a proxy for a debate about the direction. But because the direction is not well understood, the debate is also very muddy and inconclusive. And because some people will insist that the scope of the debate be confined to the document in question, people have to couch their arguments in those terms - even though their actual concerns are somewhat different. Arguments like this do not generally lead to either better understanding or consensus. Usually the subject of debate is a technical argument, rather than an argument about process. But it's the same problem. Keith
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf