trust networks and class

Dave Crocker dcrocker at
Sat Jun 21 12:22:58 CEST 2003


a> when i hear that a certain set of tasks were given to those
a> the AD trusts, i immediately hear that those not chosen
a> were not trusted.  ... and while i am
a> well aware of the fact that this is a logical fallacy, i believe
a> it is an emotional fact.

There is always someone, somewhere, who is able and likely to take a
meaning from a statement that was not intended.  So we need to be
careful about creating fear of a word on the off-chance that someone,
somewhere, might misunderstand.

With that caveat, I have to agree with your concern over the word
'trust' in most IETF process discussions.

To use the word is to make the opposite relevant. As you note, it is a
powerful, emotional term. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Perhaps the real problem is that it conveys no useful information. Would
someone be selected who is *not* trusted? Hence saying that they are
trusted provides no insight.

In all likelihood, the word is used in place of working a bit harder to
say something that really *is* meaningful and distinctive about that
person, in this particular context.

 Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list