"trouble maker"

avri avri at apocalypse.org
Mon Jun 23 09:02:36 CEST 2003

[speaking personally]

the problem i end up having, is how does one know there
is new information or a new argument until after that argument
is given.   the tendency is often to rephrase the argument in
new language.  but the speaker if asked, will certainly claim
it is a new argument or info.

this is where i think a procedural mechanism may be helpful.


On Monday, Jun 23, 2003, at 07:49 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote:

> very much in agreement.
> Keith
>> For example, I've seen exactly what
>> you describe (repeated re-opening of closed issues) and I
>> think that if WG chairs refuse allow decisions to be
>> revisited without new information or a new argument being
>> presented that problem can be addressed without
>> fundamentally re-engineering human nature.  I'd strongly
>> prefer to see this problem you're describing, which I
>> absolutely agree is a problem, framed in terms of the IETF
>> rather than in terms of the individual.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list