"Adult supervision"

[Bound, Jim]

I have had this experience too.  What I got was "this won't fly".  What
the hell does that mean and who do you think you are some kind of god or
something was my response in my brain which never came out of my mouth.
Comments like "this will kill the Internet" or "this won't fly" are
completely unacceptable form of communications.  If one believes
something will kill the Internet they should have to technically defend
it and debate it in depth.  There are no KIngs right?

You see all there are little events and happenings that make many of us
think there are Kings and we are suppose to reject Kings or Queens
right?

I don't care who one is, what they have done, or even if they are a
legend in their own mind all must defend and back-up technical comments
or words to derail work proposed or ideas.  

Power always corrupts even the most honorable person it is the systems
rules and processes that helps persons in power maintain to avoid
corruption.  Otherwise an entity ends up with Monarchy or worst case
scenario Dictatorship.

Please don't tell me this does not happen and often or I will start
sending existing working group mail where it happens right now.

This is a problem and we should fix it somehow.

/jim

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:12 PM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: "Adult supervision"
> 
> 
> > it's when working groups fail to do these things that 
> people (not just
> > in
> > IESG) say that the groups need "adult supervision" - 
> because lack of 
> > knowledge
> > and experience, lack of discipline, irresponsibility, and 
> the need for
> > constant supervision are characteristics of children.  there's a 
> > reason these
> > terms are occasionally used - it's because they sometimes fit.
> 
> The problem is that frequently a working group will fail, in some 
> person's eyes, to do as you say.   Unfortunately, I have also had 
> experiences where the person who says the working group needs adult 
> supervision simply has a very, very strong opinion about what 
> The Right 
> Thing is, even though in fact their opinion isn't, as far as 
> I can tell 
> any more right than any other opinion that prevails in the working 
> group.
> 
> I have personally had the experience of being told by a 
> former AD that 
> a technical solution I was proposing would "kill the Internet".   The 
> person making this statement refused to engage in meaningful 
> debate on 
> this point, although he was willing to repeat himself at 
> length when I 
> didn't accept his statements the first time through.
> 
> The WG chair pretty much let him have his way because he doesn't 
> personally have time to engage in multi-year debates, and because he 
> felt that this particular former AD's opinion was widely 
> shared in the 
> IESG.   I gave up too because I also don't have time for all the 
> debate.   I don't know whether the WG chair's sense of the IESG 
> members' positions is accurate.
> 
> Now, it's possible that indeed I am sufficiently stupid that 
> there was 
> simply no point in this person engaging in debate with me.   
> It's also 
> possible that I am sufficiently ignorant that it would have 
> been a lot 
> of work to explain the problem to me.   It's also possible that this 
> person was not open-minded, and thus wasn't willing to engage in a 
> sincere debate, or had determined that I was not open-minded and thus 
> could not be reasoned with.
> 
> Being a participant in this particular debate, I can't provide an 
> unbiased statement as to which of these things I think is correct - 
> obviously I think I was being reasonable.   What I can say is 
> that this 
> process was extremely counterproductive.   I was very 
> disappointed with 
> the outcome.
> 
> I think it's quite possible for a single determined person to 
> completely block worthwhile work that the IETF ought to be 
> doing, and I 
> think that's a shame.   This is despite the fact that every encounter 
> I've had with a current AD has been highly productive, and I have no 
> significant complaints about how any of the drafts I've personally 
> worked on has been handled.   Make of it what you will...
> 
>