Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] apps-discuss Digest, Vol 88, Issue 23

From: Nick Matavka <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 20:16:41 -0400

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Nick, this WG discusses whether work on Gopher fits here. Rants like
> these are not helpful at all, and likely will affect the outcome.

> FWIW, I fully agree with Larry.

> Best regards, Julian

I didn't mean to be ranty, Julian.  I meant to raise a point, that's all,
and I still haven't received an answer.

*Who* decides what a "high-value project" is?  I think it's an important
question.  If it's group "consensus", how is "consensus" defined?  Does
consensus mean EVERYONE agrees (unanimous), or simply the prevailing wind
of opinion?  Larry makes good points, I agree, but his tone of voice is
infuriating sometimes.  What is the definition of a high-value project,
anyway?  To whom should the project be highly valuable?  If the answer to
this is, "the Internet-using public," who judges what is valuable to the
public?

Larry's right in being concerned about what I would call the
signal-to-noise ratio of this mailing list.  The fact is that there is the
possibility and, in fact, the reality of irrelevant, insulting, and/or
uninformed feedback.  Some people just can't be professional about it; I'm
not talking about Larry or myself, because I know we're decent people who
just can't seem to disagree civilly, but the fact is that there are people
with a consistent history of making unconstructive feedback either out of
ignorance or because it amuses them.

And if I were him, I would raise another reservation; not a pure objection,
because I wouldn't object to my own project, but I would ask if the author
is able and willing to work within the IETF framework.  I would ask if the
author or authors are willing to listen to, and heed, technically
reasonable input and to have drafts updated within a reasonable turnaround
time.  I would also think about whether the author responds in an adult way
to feedback, either positive or negative.

I have no objection to Masinter's opinions, but rather his wording.  In
fact, I agree with the questions he raises, but he should define his words
more carefully because what he writes might be mistaken for
belligerence---this is why I replied to his comments in an equally
belligerent tone, but with reasoned argument.

Fraternal regards,

Ed Matavka