"Adult supervision"

[Bound, Jim]

I agree and I really like to exclaim in disgust is good way to put it.
That is not productive.  I have had similar experiences and like you I
have no issue with the person it was the event.

But I don't think some here are getting the point.  

This is pretty simple to me.  Don't make casual remarks that blow up
others work but make constructive remarks.  Or the chairs should dismiss
it as here-say as in a judge would in a court room.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 2:30 PM
> To: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: "Adult supervision"
> 
> 
> > I suggest IETF persons just ignore people like this or 
> publicly force 
> > them to defend themselves and if they do not then the 
> community will 
> > ignore them and problem resolved :--)
> 
> That sounds great in theory.   But in practice that isn't 
> what happened 
> in this particular case.   What happened was that every interested 
> party engaged in debate with him until they realized that he wasn't 
> listening, and this process, iterated across a number of wg 
> participants, effectively swamped the debate, causing a number of 
> interested parties to resign from the mailing list, and ultimately he 
> got his way.   You don't know in advance that someone is going to be 
> unreasonable, unfortunately.   This particular individual is 
> obviously 
> not a completely unreasonable person, either - he was an AD, and I 
> agree with many of his positions.   Furthermore, I totally sympathize 
> with his desire not to keep justifying his position - it does get 
> tiring to keep re-engaging in debate on the same point over and over 
> again.
> 
> My real point here is not that this person should not have 
> participated, but rather that the way to avoid this kind of 
> repetition 
> is not to exclaim in disgust - it is to document the details and get 
> consensus on them, and get them published as RFCs.   And if you can't 
> get consensus, you don't get to claim that the issue is closed.
> 
>