On 19/06/13 14:44, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Aaron Yi DING <yd...@cs.helsinki.fi
<mailto:yd...@cs.helsinki.fi>> wrote:
On 18/06/13 21:08, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
When I make a statement at the microphone and then have multiple
people come to thank me afterwards for making that point I don't
consider it pontificating.
sorry, just point it out, sometimes you said it right, but that
does not guarantee you are always right. to correct and make it
clearer, "when ... made a statement, ... people came to thank"
for past experience, no present tense please.
no further comment, since I actually appreciate what you said and
the intention, as you described below.
It is hard to encourage, much easier to discourage. I thought Peter's
attempt at a slap down was completely out of line and demonstrates the
problem I am talking about here. Agenda denial is a strategy where to
avoid discussing the topic that you know you have a weak case you
suggest a change of topic.
Definitely not hinting to change the topic..
As I just exchange opinions with other IETFer on this. With no
disrespect, I agree with the latter part of your previous mail,
especially about the tendency of being an exclusive environment.
It's not about correcting the grammar or sth other trivial thing. What I
want to convey through the message is that our past experience may
affect our judgment of upcoming deed. Believe or not, smart people like
most IETFers, perhaps tend to be bit cocky as there are so many positive
experience accumulated in the past. However, experience may not stand
always perfectly correct, and it is not a justification for every future
action. This is not targeting at you or any specific person.
There is visible problem here and perhaps more. Constructive suggestions
and actions will be most welcome. Comments with pure emotional
reflections are comments, e.g. not happy about this; those are
completely wrong; it is hopeless...
I repeat that I appreciate your suggestions.
It would be nice if we all appreciate the time of the readers on the list.
Thanks,
Aaron
There is a real problem with accountability and transparency in the
IETF constitution which was designed by a bunch of old boys to
maintain control in their own hands. Peter is a member of the IETF
establishment so of course he sees no structural problem.
What I suggested is that the status quo is going to lead to
applications area work moving to forums outside the IETF. The Jabber
folk have already done this with the XMPP foundation.
I have the greatest of respect for Vint Cerf's technical capabilities
but he consistently failed to establish open and transparent
governance mechanisms.
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
