Subject: Re: Ad hominems

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:57:49 -0500 (EST)

> From: <[email-masked]>

    > I'd like to point out that I didn't make an ad hominem argument or
    > assertion.

    > From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>

    > The form of your note was not the issue. It was the substance. The
    > substance was directed at a person and was /about/ that person. It's
    > the 'about' that made it ad hominem.

I think there are different thresholds for 'ad hominem' - loosely interpreted
as '_inappropriately_ about the speaker rather than about what they say' -
depending on the area.

For instance, in a purely technical issue (e.g. 'that algorithm scales as
O(<foo>), not O(<bar>), as has been contended'), I think it's pretty clear
that pretty much anything about the questioner is relatively immaterial.
There's an objective 'right' or 'wrong', etc. So the 'ad hominem' threshold
there is pretty low.

On the other hand, for discussions of group governance, I think the person's
experience/knowledge/etc _are_ relevant, because when it comes to managing
human groups, there are no 'right' answers. (Which is why the Law of
Unintended Consequences often comes into play in human governance decisions.)
That kind of information about someone has some real utility in evaluating
their thoughts about such topics, so _some_ questioning is legitimate.

And in these latter case, I suspect there's also a grey area - 'you're an
idiot' is pretty clearly over the line, 'how much experience have you had
running large groups' is probably relevant, and 'how old are you' (as a quick
example off the top of my head, not necessarily the greyest I could come up
with if I spent more time thinking about it) is somewhere in the middle..

	Noel

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:16:07 -0500

On Feb 25, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Noel Chiappa <[email-masked]> wrote:
> and 'how old are you' (as a quick

Actually, if you think a bit more about this you might conclude that it's not in the middle at all.   It's almost always pejorative, whether the implied age is young or old.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:48:24 -0800

> their thoughts about such topics, so _some_ questioning is legitimate.

I don't dispute that, and there may, indeed, be cases where it's more
relevant.  In this case, it's not.  Leaving names off:

- A suggestion was made that we consider giving each presenter 5
minutes of agenda time.

- One response was given asking what experience with our meetings
gives that person standing to make such a suggestion.

- More than one response was given saying that that, or something very
much like it, had been tried before, and didn't work.

Now, which of those responses was the more useful one?  Which is more
in line with how we prefer to conduct our business?

I personally think that when questioning someone's background or
credentials is, in our environment, useful and appropriate at all,
it's only so as a back-stop, not as a first-order consideration.

Barry

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:22:28 -0500

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Actually, if you think a bit more about this you might conclude that it's
> not in the middle at all.   It's almost always pejorative, whether the
> implied age is young or old.
>

Well one of the points I am about to make in my next podcast on BitCoin is
that the reason BitCoiners with technical chops tend to have a median age
of about 27 is that the older generation of crypto types have seen it all
before in Gold Age, eGold, Liberty Reserve etc.

But in that case it is making a point to a group that is running round
making the claim that their scheme is the future of finance because it is
new. So pointing out that it is e-Gold with 'blockchain' for 'bearer' is
rather relevant.

As Barry points out in his post, it all depends on context. The problem
here was that the poster raised a reasonable point and the first response
was rude and exclusionary and not backed up by any substance. In the right
circumstances 'well we tried that and it failed in Kobe' might be a
relevant argument. But 'who the hell are you to ask' is not a reasonable
response to an initial suggestion made in a reasonable manner.

There are cases where rudeness is justified and necessary. When a group is
running round burning $20 million worth of electricity a month and mouthing
off about how everyone who doesn't believe in their scheme is an idiot,
then its time to take the gloves off. Rude or not, when $350 million of a
total float of $7 billion is alleged to be missing due to one bank that
might have failed, anyone who does not understand the jig is up is going to
be calling themselves things far worse than stupid in a short time.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:23:42 +0000

> - A suggestion was made that we consider giving each presenter 5
Let's look at the text that started this discussion:

"Dear IETF WGs' Chairs,

"I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes
present per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft
(as limit policy). We need to use more input and have more face2face
(F2F) discussion in our meeting. I remember we discussed this before
...."

Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the
text construction is that of an instruction.

When I saw Lloyd's email my first thought  was Francis Urquhart's
catchphrase, and I suspect that I might not have been alone.

Stewart

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:09:14 -0800 (PST)

> Now, which of those responses was the more useful one?

The answer is we really can't tell, because the discussion was meta'ed before
the question could be answered.

Speaking for myself, I have no idea what that answer would have been. My
impression is that the original suggestion came from someone  who doesn't have
substantive IETF experience, but for all I know they may have substantive and
directly relevant experience in some other venue. And if that were indeed the
case, isn't it possible that "running code" from somewhere else would be
helpful in addressing this perennial and vexing issue?

> Which is more

Again, I take no position on whether or not the question was asked in an 
offensive fashion or not. But the way I would prefer to conduct our business is
that substance trumps form. And to my mind the underlying question *was*
relevant.

> it's only so as a back-stop, not as a first-order consideration.

And as I stated previously, I strongly disagree. I think background and
experience are often highly relevant to a wide variety of discussions, both
technical and procedural, we seem to be having these days.

It's also the case that people with relevant knowledge and experience often
neglect to point that out. And not everyone knows everyone's antecedants. (This
is the other side of the Dunning-Kruger effect coming into play.) For example,
I have on several occasions been accused of engaging in mindreading when I
averred as to what the intentions behind various parts of MIME were at the time
it was written.

				Ned

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:39:23 -0800

> text construction is that of an instruction.

Instruction?  Huh?  That characterization warrants careful explanation. 
  Please provide it.

The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need.  It implied that 
implementing the change would remedy the need.

What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example, 
explanation?

There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note making 
the suggestion.  Everything focusing on background and presence or lack 
of expertise was introduced by others, in response.  Hence, ad hominem.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:41:10 -0900

> that substance trumps form. And to my mind the underlying question *was*

I thought that there was a non-negligible possibility that the
intent was to be disruptive (mission accomplished).  Given the
size of the mailing list and the number of IETF participants it's
not very likely that every single person will just let it go.

To be honest I have no idea how to deal with intent here and
tend to think the fairest thing is to not deal with it to the
extent possible (can't always ignore it [for example, the descent
of EFF members on the IETF during the TLS authz discussions],
but I think you usually can).  I thought Lloyd should have
ignored it but he didn't, and it seems pretty clear to me
that if someone does care about intent, context and history
matter a very great deal.

Melinda

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:12:23 +0000

On 25/02/2014 19:39, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Instruction?  Huh?  That characterization warrants careful 
> explanation.  Please provide it.
>
> There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note 
> making the suggestion.  Everything focusing on background and presence 
> or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response.  Hence, ad 
> hominem.
>
> d/

Dave

First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to
this discussion.

I explained how I interpreted that that text when I first read it.
That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading,
and as such requires no further explanation.

As to the later context concerning the original posters remarks:
I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F
meeting when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that
Lloyd also had that context before he posted.

So, please consider that

1) There was widely shared prior context in the early
discussion.

2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses
coloured by both experience and context and will interpret
it accordingly.

In the case of this text construct itself, I read it as an instruction
because that is the style of text I might have written if I were
issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD.

- Stewart

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:22:14 +0000

> making the suggestion. 

because there wasn't a MUST or a SHOULD in it?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 February 2014 19:39
To: [email-masked]; Barry Leiba; Noel Chiappa
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Ad hominems

d/

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:32:16 +0000

> meeting when I read the OP

and the IETF mentoring program is very helpful to new attendees,
I'm told.

http://www.ietf.org/resources/mentoring-program.html

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant [[email-masked]]
Sent: 25 February 2014 20:12
To: [email-masked]; Barry Leiba; Noel Chiappa
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Ad hominems

Dave

So, please consider that

- Stewart

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:21:38 -0500

At 03:12 PM 2/25/2014, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>Instruction?  Huh?  That characterization warrants careful explanation.  Please provide it.
>>
>>The note 1) made a suggestion, and 2) Stated a need.  It implied that implementing the change would remedy the need.
>>
>>What part of that qualifies as "instruction" rather than, for example, explanation?
>>
>>There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note making the suggestion.  Everything focusing on background and presence or lack of expertise was introduced by others, in response.  Hence, ad hominem.
>>
>>d/
>
>Dave
>

I read the original email much like Stewart did.  Unlike a number of the posters on this chain, I did not review the email "de novo" - or in isolation from the original poster's other emails and considered it in the context of other postings from the originator. I briefly considered whether or not it would be profitable for either the IETF or for the poster to note my dissatisfaction with his post publicly or privately.   I decided against, but the discussion has progressed. 

This chain has been about "ad hominem" attacks, but I considered the original post to be somewhat of an  "ad ordinationem" - or an attack on the organization.  It's possible that I'm overreacting to the style of posting or "lost in translation" language nuances in this interpretation, but that interpretation  is colored by a pretty long record of [personal interpretation] "you must do it my way"  or "your way is wrong" posts by the original poster over the last 6 or so months. <opinion>    As it is, I read the original post as a negative comment by an outsider on established processes and cultures internal to the IETF and the comment should get appropriate weighting based on the posters lack of experience within the organization. </opinion>

The IETF is and has been for quite a while a technological meritocracy of some flavor [personal observation based on 28 years of experience with the IETF].  We *always* consider the relevant experience, expertise, past commentary and general sanity of a speaker when considering what to do about their speech.  So the inquiry into the poster's experience was neither irrelevant or unusual.    

Mike

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:39:27 +0000

Mike,

Finally a voice of sanity.  As an aside, I thought Lloyd's original email was remarkably restrained given the context of the last year or so.  

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Michael StJohns
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:22 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Barry Leiba; Noel Chiappa
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Ad hominems
> 
> >>>"I suggest in London that you assign only maximum 10 minutes present
> >>>per WG draft and maximum 5 minute for individual draft (as limit
> >>>policy). We need to use more input and have more face2face
> >>>Although that text started with the word "suggestion", the text
> >>>construction is that of an instruction.
> >>
> >>
> >>There was nothing tutorial, parental or authoritative in the note making the
> suggestion.  Everything focusing on background and presence or lack of
> expertise was introduced by others, in response.  Hence, ad hominem.
> >>
> >>d/
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >That was a personal interpretation of the text on first reading, and as
> >such requires no further explanation.
> >
> >I was already fully aware that London would be their first F2F meeting
> >when I read the OP, and I am fairly confident that Lloyd also had that
> >context before he posted.
> >
> >So, please consider that
> >
> >1) There was widely shared prior context in the early discussion.
> >
> >2) That everyone sees text though their personal lenses coloured by
> >both experience and context and will interpret it accordingly.
> >
> I read the original email much like Stewart did.  Unlike a number of the posters
> on this chain, I did not review the email "de novo" - or in isolation from the
> original poster's other emails and considered it in the context of other postings
> from the originator. I briefly considered whether or not it would be profitable
> for either the IETF or for the poster to note my dissatisfaction with his post
> publicly or privately.   I decided against, but the discussion has progressed.
> 
> This chain has been about "ad hominem" attacks, but I considered the original
> post to be somewhat of an  "ad ordinationem" - or an attack on the
> organization.  It's possible that I'm overreacting to the style of posting or "lost
> in translation" language nuances in this interpretation, but that interpretation
> is colored by a pretty long record of [personal interpretation] "you must do it
> my way"  or "your way is wrong" posts by the original poster over the last 6 or
> so months. <opinion>    As it is, I read the original post as a negative comment
> by an outsider on established processes and cultures internal to the IETF and
> the comment should get appropriate weighting based on the posters lack of
> experience within the organization. </opinion>
> 
> The IETF is and has been for quite a while a technological meritocracy of some
> flavor [personal observation based on 28 years of experience with the IETF].
> We *always* consider the relevant experience, expertise, past commentary
> and general sanity of a speaker when considering what to do about their
> speech.  So the inquiry into the poster's experience was neither irrelevant or
> unusual.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:47:15 -0800

> First, please can I request that you take a less harassing approach to

If I knew what you considered harassing and how it constitutes 
harassing, I'd be able to consider the request.  Given the import of a 
word like harassing, it's surprising it would be used without any 
explanation.  So, sitting as a standalone assertion, without 
explanation, it's difficult to see how your 'request' is constructive.

> and as such requires no further explanation.

As nearly as I can tell, you are referring to the note posted with

      Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:23:42 +0000

and I don't see an 'explanation' in it.  I see the assertion that labels 
the text and that's what I was asking to have explained.  (It's the 
first quoted text at the start of the current message.)

> Lloyd also had that context before he posted.

So?

> 1) There was widely shared prior context in the early

a) This nicely points to a likely source of misbehaviors in the IETF: 
confusing close, familiar groups that have plenty of context, with 
public, diverse environments which do not. This is not a private club, 
where behaviors can comfortably be whatever the members want.  This is 
an open, international forum in which there should be some expectation 
of professional demeanor.  In such an environment, challenging someone's 
expertise is warranted only in the face of their claiming expertise, 
which he didn't.

b) The prior context you are claiming is irrelevant to the exchange in 
question.  He didn't call on it, and as nearly as I can tell from my own 
reading of the IETF list, whatever context you are referring to -- and I 
don't know what or where it was -- it had nothing to do with the 
specific suggestion being made.

> coloured by both experience and context and will interpret

What a delightfully "Through the Looking Glass" approach to demurring 
from responsibility for personal behavior.  It's especially amusing in a 
community that writes international specifications that rely on getting 
common interpretations, in the service of interoperability.

It nicely points to individual difference as if there were no shared 
conventions and meaning.  Since the essence of 'communication' is shared 
meaning, that's quite a trick.

> issuing an instruction to the RTG WG Chairs as their AD.

OK.  So "do x; we need y" is an instruction.  Well, yeah, that works 
well when everyone has a thoroughly shared context, where no real 
explanations are needed.  Such as works in a tightly-knit team.

But that's a bit unusual -- and highly risky -- to assume in an open, 
diverse forum like the IETF..

d/

ps.  By way of noting a pattern of comments made on this thread:  There 
seems to be some view that disliking a speaker is a sufficient reason 
for attacking them (publicly.)  Of course, it isn't.  It's an excellent 
reason for ignoring them.  But not for attacking them.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:20:39 -0800

At 13:47 25-02-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
>a) This nicely points to a likely source of misbehaviors in the 
>IETF: confusing close, familiar groups that have plenty of context, 
>with public, diverse environments which do not. This is not a 
>private club, where behaviors can comfortably be whatever the 
>members want.  This is an open, international forum in which there 
>should be some expectation of professional demeanor.  In such an 
>environment, challenging someone's expertise is warranted only in 
>the face of their claiming expertise, which he didn't.

If the IETF is a private club members can do whatever they want.  If 
the IETF is an international organization there is an expectation 
that the members will act in a professional manner when the situation 
warrants it.  Please note that I did not go for an extreme as it 
might quash individualism [1].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of 
the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:32:35 -0900

On 2/25/14 2:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> If the IETF is a private club members can do whatever they want.  If the
> IETF is an international organization there is an expectation that the
> members will act in a professional manner when the situation warrants
> it. 

The IETF does not have members.  This is not a minor point.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:36:00 -0500

--On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:57 -0500 Noel Chiappa
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I think there are different thresholds for 'ad hominem' -
> loosely interpreted as '_inappropriately_ about the speaker
> rather than about what they say' - depending on the area.

Noel,

See Andrew's careful explanation for a better definition, but an
ad hominem argument is not about the speaker or necessarily
addressed to the speaker.  "Joe is a meat eater, and therefore
his position on BGP is obviously incorrect" is an example,
albeit an extreme one: some property is attributed to Joe that
some members of the community might find unattractive and Joe's
association with that property is then used as a argument
against accepting Joe's view on something completely irrelevant
to that property.  Whether that is also a personal attack on Joe
is irrelevant to the ad hominem argument.

The only thing I can think of that would affect the "threshold"
is the degree of relevancy between the property being asserted
and the proposed conclusion.

>...
> On the other hand, for discussions of group governance, I
> think the person's experience/knowledge/etc _are_ relevant,
> because when it comes to managing human groups, there are no
> 'right' answers. (Which is why the Law of Unintended
> Consequences often comes into play in human governance
> decisions.) That kind of information about someone has some
> real utility in evaluating their thoughts about such topics,
> so _some_ questioning is legitimate.

It seems to me that we keep getting distracted by two things:

(1) The difference between a personal attack on someone (direct
or indirect) and an ad hominem argument.  They actually have
very little to do with each other.  Certainly there are
instances of the former that are not instances of the latter and
vice versa.

(2) The relationship between whether a question or other form of
challenge to an idea is appropriate and/or politically correct
in form and personal attacks.  I can ask a question that is
perfectly in order and phrase it with the intent that the person
being asked feels personally attacked, I can ask inappropriate
questions so that they are not... and the other cases exist too.

> And in these latter case, I suspect there's also a grey area -
> 'you're an idiot' is pretty clearly over the line, 'how much
> experience have you had running large groups' is probably
> relevant, and 'how old are you' (as a quick example off the
> top of my head, not necessarily the greyest I could come up

Whatever those are, they are not ad hominem arguments because
there is, in non-philosopher language, no "and therefore"
construction.  Those are all assertions that, again, may be true
or false and may or may not be appropriate in polite company
whether or not they are personal attacks and regardless of their
truth status.     You are talking about more or less appropriate
questions and statements above, not ad hominem anything.

Under normal circumstances, I'd mutter something about
terminology errors about a logic fallacy into my beard and move
on rather than commenting on this at all.  But we seem to be
stepping into policy arguments about what constitutes
harassment.  There I think these distinctions become important
because ad hominem arguments, while they reflect badly on the
person who tries to make them and may reflect badly on anyone
who doesn't see the logic fallacy, are rarely considered
harassing even if repeated to the point of silliness.  Personal
attacks, whether separate or the first, "Melvin is an idiot",
part of  an ad hominem or other argument, are another matter
entirely.  And I think it is important to be clear about what we
are talking about.

   john

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 19:49:35 -0500

That is a polite fiction.

I have no doubt that the lawyers would find that we were members if it
suited them.

We don't have any rights, that is true enough.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 02:44:03 +0100

John,

The person have been in the IETF meeting remotely participating, and the
current WGs agenda is not known how it was organised so the suggestion was
based on past and current facts.

Readers may assume the person is not experience but why do they assume that
meeting don't need improvement or why they assume that current meeting
agenda cannot be commented on or why they assume that IETF meeting are
perfectly organised.

IMHO If the comment was from some one else, many will change their mind
just because he/she is popular experience not because of any other type
of experience.

AB

AB

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 01:46:54 +0000

AB,

As Dave Crocker wisely advised, there are situations in which it is best to ignore the correspondent.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

From: ietf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:44 PM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Ad hominems

John,

The person have been in the IETF meeting remotely participating, and the current WGs agenda is not known how it was organised so the suggestion was based on past and current facts.

Readers may assume the person is not experience but why do they assume that meeting don't need improvement or why they assume that current meeting agenda cannot be commented on or why they assume that IETF meeting are perfectly organised.

IMHO If the comment was from some one else, many will change their mind just because he/she is popular experience not because of any other type of experience.

AB

AB

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 02:22:01 +0000

> As Dave Crocker wisely advised, there are situations in which it is best to ignore the correspondent.

Of course, ignoring the correspondent, rather than the correspondence, would be an
ad-hominem response. Which would be unacceptable. No?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: ietf [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of John E Drake [[email-masked]]
Sent: 26 February 2014 01:46
To: Abdussalam Baryun; John C Klensin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Ad hominems

AB,

Yours Irrespectively,

John

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 02:32:48 +0000

Speak to Dave.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 6:22 PM
> To: John E Drake; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Ad hominems
> 
> Of course, ignoring the correspondent, rather than the correspondence, would
> be an ad-hominem response. Which would be unacceptable. No?
> 
> Lloyd Wood

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:35:16 +0800

> Speak to Dave.

who's dave?

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:07:21 +0000

Pretty much everyone.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:34:15 -0800

Hi Melinda,
>The IETF does not have members.  This is not a minor point.

I should have written:

   the individuals will act in a professional manner when the situation
   warrants it.

I am not comfortable stating that there is consensus on an 
Internet-Draft when participation is from a small number of 
individuals having some affiliation in common.  That creates an 
appearance of a private club.

It is difficult to convince someone who is, for example, from a 
developing country that the IETF is a large open international 
community when a quick look at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.html shows 
that there has only been participation from individuals from one or 
two countries.

It might be that the meaning of "situation" in my previous message 
was unclear.  I'll use 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03047.html as an 
example to illustrate what I was thinking about.  One of the 
difficulties in resolving a situation is figuring out how to avoid 
the perception of a private club.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: David Conrad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:12:34 +0800

> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

+1

Regards,
-drc

---

From: Izaac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 06:51:02 -0500

>who's dave?

Dave's not here, man.

-- 
Izaac

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:16:04 -0500

Changing the subject line and moving away from debates about
logic fallacies and attacks...

--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 02:44 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> John,
> 
> The person have been in the IETF meeting remotely
> participating, and the current WGs agenda is not known how it
> was organised so the suggestion was based on past and current
> facts.

Actually, in many WGs, those who have been actively
participating in the WG are fairly aware of how the agenda was
constructed and organized.  Many WG chairs ask for agenda
suggestions before the agenda is posted, others conclude (as I
often have) that the work of the WG makes the agenda obvious and
not worth wasting list time on [1].  Once the preliminary agenda
for a WG meeting is posted, WG participants are free to ask
questions about it or even to challenge it [2].   It the agenda
is not posted, even after complaints within the WG or
suggestions for changes are ignored, it is entirely reasonable
and appropriate to immediately involve the AD, questioning
whether the WG Chair(s) need additional supervision and/or their
appropriateness for the role.

In all of the above, WGs differ.  Some have many agenda items,
some only a few.  Some are at stages in their work where they
consider tutorial-style presentations appropriate, others have
specific issues that they need to be discuss and need to assume
that anyone with an interest in participating (rather than
merely observing) will have read (and made a serious effort to
understand) the relevant drafts.  In some, there is a lot of
room for improvement in how those norms and expectations are
communicated within the WG; others do well about that.   The
existence of those differences has been discussed often enough
on this list that I believe it is reasonable to expect those who
have participated in more than two or three meetings, even
remotely, and who take their participation seriously and expect
other to do so, to understand it.

Those differences, and that presumption of understanding, means
that any "all WGs should do X" suggestion is immediately
suspect, independent of who makes it or the value of "X".
"Suspect" doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or a bad idea,
just that it will get a lot more scrutiny and that someone
making the proposal would be well-advised to provide more
extensive explanation and rationale when the suggestion is made.
If that isn't present, the person making the suggestion is
likely to discover that some of us respond with too-long notes
(like this one) that explore the details and that others respond
with short comments or questions that can easily be mistaken for
attacks on the proposer whether that is intended or not.  I'm
sure there is a happy middle ground but many of us, in part due
to lack of time, aren't good at consistently finding it.

> Readers may assume the person is not experience but why do
> they assume that meeting don't need improvement or why they
> assume that current meeting agenda cannot be commented on or
> why they assume that IETF meeting are perfectly organised.

I think you are making assumptions in the paragraph above that
are symptomatic of why you then perceive yourself as being
mistreated.  I've been around the community for some years, have
participated in multiple WGs, authored or edited multiple
documents, and held a few WG Chair and other "leadership"
positions.   I don't think I've run into anyone with significant
IETF experience who believes the system (or meetings in
particular) would not benefit from improvements.  There is less
agreement about what those improvements should be, as some
spectacular failures in process change efforts demonstrate.
Similarly, no one I know of assumes that focused comments on the
meeting agenda are out of order.  There are typically many
comments on the IETF list about ordering of meetings and
conflicts among WG slots; if you had visibility into the WG
Chairs list (see note [2] below), you would have seen far more.
And comments on particular WG agendas are very much in order
within those WGs, as discussed above.

The key problem with your comment/suggestion, stripped of all of
the (IMO) emotional and peripheral comments that followed
(relevant or not), was that it made (or appeared to make) a
blanket suggestion of a change for all WGs without nearly enough
argument or explanation _within the proposal note_ to overcome
the strong presumption that WGs differ sufficiently that no
suggestion about agenda constraints is applicable to all of
them.  I note that, while much of the community agrees in
principle that extensive "presentations" in WG sessions are bad
news, ideas to ban them have gotten no traction for much the
same reason.

> IMHO If the comment was from some one else, many will change
> their mind just because he/she is popular experience not
> because of any other type of experience.

For the reasons given above, I just do not believe that.  If
that exact same comment had come, e.g., from Dave Crocker or
myself, the substantive response that it was not a useful idea
would almost certainly have been identical.  There would be a
difference: many members of the community feel far more freedom
to heap abuse on Dave and myself (and sometimes we on each
other) when we suggest something about which the community
thinks we should have known better than they would do with
someone whose experience in the community is less deep and
tested.

I look forward to meeting you in person next week.
best,
   john

[1] Perhaps, in the quest for transparency, that is bad judgment
although, as usual, I remain instinctively opposed to more rigid
rules.  For the same reason and because most WG chairs don't
need extra work, I'm instinctively opposed to rules that would
require the WG chair(s) to explain the agenda choices when the
preliminary agenda is posted.  Both of those topics might well
benefit from additional discussion among those who are
interested (I hope not on the IETF list).

[2]  These kinds of topics in WG leadership and management are
among those that are periodically discussed on the WG Chairs
list and training sessions.  For reasons of efficiency and to
avoid various sorts of disruption and attacks (neither of which
is an entirely theoretical problem) that list and those sessions
are limited to WG Chairs (and the IAB and IESG).   From time to
time, I've advocated making the mailing list or its archives
available on a read-only basis to the broader community and/or
broadcasting the training sessions on an informational,
listen-only, basis.  I think that either or both might improve
transparency and understanding of what WG Chairs do and why, but
have never pressed the idea when it hasn't gotten traction.
IESG and EDU team, perhaps it is time to consider it.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 05:29:48 -0800

Hello,

I received a private comment which contained some some advice about 
IETF process in response to the message at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86321.html  That 
advice contradicts the advice provided by participants who are also 
Area Directors.

In my opinion such occurrences can cause confusion for the average 
participant as it is difficult to know whom to believe.  It can be 
even more difficult for people who reside in some parts of the world 
due to cultural differences.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 08:59:10 -0500

--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 05:29 -0800 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I received a private comment which contained some some advice
> about IETF process in response to the message at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg86321.htm
> l  That advice contradicts the advice provided by participants
> who are also Area Directors.

Subramanian,

Without details, the above is indistinguishable from innuendo.
That is not helpful in informing the rest of us about anything
other than that there are differences in opinion and perspective
in the community (I trust that doesn't surprise anyone).  I
recommend (in public because this context seems to require it)
that you go back to the person who made that comment, note the
contradiction, and ask for permission to bring the IESG (or
relevant ADs) into the conversation.  I hope we can look forward
to a report on your conclusions after the discussions that
should result.

> In my opinion such occurrences can cause confusion for the
> average participant as it is difficult to know whom to
> believe.  

But I think that leaves only two choices:

(1) Someone who receives apparently-contradictory advice draws
all parties involved into a conversation and tries to get the
issues straightened out and the confusion eliminated.  That is
particularly important because I've often found that some
apparent contradictions are merely people saying what is
ultimately the same thing from widely different perspectives and
in different terms.

(2) We establish a complete canon of procedural rules and
definitions, insist that anyone participating in the IETF
formally subscribe to it, and kick anyone who deviates off all
the mailing lists.

I can't begin to list the reasons why the second would be a bad
idea but, as long as we come from different backgrounds,
cultures, and perspectives on the IETF, differences such as the
one you describe are inevitable and the only important questions
are whether we can put the effort and good faith into sorting
them out (even if the result is in agreeing to disagree) or
whether we just complain.

> It can be even more difficult for people who reside
> in some parts of the world due to cultural differences.

Sure.  There is no question that we've got a lot of cultural
differences and resulting potential disconnects here, even among
"native" speakers of English and/or North American and Western
European residents.    We should be working on them and it is
good that attempts in that direction are moving forward.  But
there are some of those cultural issues here that are probably
not going to change and probably shouldn't, even if changes
would widen nominal participation.  As two examples among many,
those who are unwilling to speak up about their views are going
to be at a disadvantage, at least until we replace rough
consensus with secret ballots at every decision point.  Second,
if we could devise a vocabulary and interaction style that would
be politically correct in every culture of the world, it would
be a foreign language and culture to all, or almost all, of us
and, if only for that reason, might not contribute to
efficiency.  The same comment would apply to our adopting the
formalized language of international diplomacy as often used in
some other SDOs.

I do worry that industry consolidation and related factors are
resulting in an increasing number of WGs with active
participation only from people associated with a small number of
companies.  That not only looks bad but is a threat to making of
industry standards even when everyone involved is acting in good
faith.   But I don't know any fixes other that reversing those
industry trends or giving up.  The first doesn't seem to be
within our power and I assume there is consensus that the second
isn't desirable.

best,
   john

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:13:36 -0500

> mistreated.

Strong agreement.

+1

And more to the point (and this is very important context), this same
suggestion has been made many times before, with exactly the same long
discussion and the same conclusion (i.e,. no consensus to do this,
with good arguments for why it's not a good policy). It's a simplistic
proposal that just doesn't make sense as a blanket policy.

> are limited to WG Chairs (and the IAB and IESG).
> listen-only, basis. 

wgchairs list archive is publically available.

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/maillist.html

Thomas

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:39:30 +0800

> with good arguments for why it's not a good policy). It's a simplistic

the reason the suggestion is repeated is that it tends to actually have
some effect for a while.  nothing is absolute, nothing is a cure, the
disease is in our minds.

randy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:52:27 -0500

--On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 09:13 -0500 Thomas Narten
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've advocated making the mailing list or its archives

Sorry.  Hadn't noticed that change.  Should have checked before
assuming it had not been made.

best,
   john

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:55:14 +0800

it was probably i being stupid and trying to tell SM that the wg chairs
determine consensus.  and when he is a wg chair, he can do so.

if it could be automated, we would not need humans.  but i am sure the
second guessing would not abate.

randy, who has way too much technical work and too many plane flights to
       be stupid and engage here

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:12:56 -0800

Hi John,
>to a report on your conclusions after the discussions that

I suggested posting the comment to the [email-masked] mailing list 
before I posted my message.

I'll comment from a general perspective.  People do not mention 
advice publicly as the difference of opinions might be 
highlighted.  My guess is that there are differences of opinions even 
between Area Directors. :-)  I think that some people would be 
surprised to hear what is said in private and what is said in public.

Take care,
-sm

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 09:29:00 -0800

On 2/26/14, 9:12 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:

>  My guess
> is that there are differences of opinions even between Area Directors.

Anyone whose ever read the minutes if an IESG meeting, knows that there
are differences of opinion especially among area directors.

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:06:15 +1300

On 26/02/2014 21:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
...
> Internet-Draft when participation is from a small number of individuals
> having some affiliation in common.  That creates an appearance of a
> private club.

But participation is open to everybody; if I don't choose to comment
on a draft, that is my problem, not the problem of those who do
comment. Nobody has ever told me that I am not allowed to comment.

> developing country that the IETF is a large open international community
> when a quick look at
> that there has only been participation from individuals from one or two
> countries.

I'm sorry... which particular mail threads do you mean? Anyway, a
lot of comments come from a country called gmail, which you won't
find in the UN list.

I understand that it's hard for people to understand that there
is no barrier to speech in the IETF and that there is no secret
handshake.

On 27/02/2014 06:12, S Moonesamy wrote:

...
> I think that some people would be surprised to hear what is said in private and what is said in public. 

Really? It seems to me to be a universal aspect of human behaviour
that people are more disciplined and careful when speaking in
public than when speaking in private. If my private opinion is that
some IETF work is "Yuck", "Pointless", or "Relatively harmless"
(examples from my private notes) I am unlikely to say so in public.
I would use more analytic language.

    Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:18:18 +0000

> On 26 Feb 2014, at 19:06, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:.
> 

Yet!

tim

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 20:35:57 +0100 (CET)

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I understand that it's hard for people to understand that there is no 
> barrier to speech in the IETF and that there is no secret handshake.

There are no *formal* barriers. I like that about the IETF, but I don't 
agree that there are no barriers. I'd imagine a lot of people will be shy 
to join a discussion and voice their opinion, especially if they're not 
used to the discussion climate. In some cultures I imagine it's not common 
that one voices a dissenting opinion against the sitting chairman of that 
organisation.

I have no idea how to improve this, I personally find the IETF to be 
extremely open, but I also know a lot of people who are intimidated by the 
thought of going up against the world "elite" and voicing their opinion. 
Few people feel comfortable doing that.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 08:42:19 +1300

On 27/02/2014 08:35, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> agree that there are no barriers. I'd imagine a lot of people will be
> shy to join a discussion and voice their opinion, especially if they're
> not used to the discussion climate. In some cultures I imagine it's not
> common that one voices a dissenting opinion against the sitting chairman
> of that organisation.
> 
> extremely open, but I also know a lot of people who are intimidated by
> the thought of going up against the world "elite" and voicing their
> opinion. Few people feel comfortable doing that.

Correct, but I suspect that this depends on the individual at least
as much as on the individual's culture.

As I've said before: suggestions for improving http://www.ietf.org/newcomers.html
are always welcome.

    Brian

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:46:33 -0800 (PST)

Ok -

You guys are trying to make me laugh - cyber magicians!

cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-online-deception.pdf
cryptome.org/2014/01/gchq-squeaky-dolphin.pdf

- Lucy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:21:07 -0800

Hi Brian,
>comment. Nobody has ever told me that I am not allowed to comment.

I am using "you" for clarity.  It is not intended as antagonism.  You 
have been participating in the IETF since a long time.  I don't think 
that someone would tell you that you are not allowed to comment.

If a person posts a comment and receives a sarcastic reply he or she 
will be uncomfortable to post more comments.  If a person sees 
"someone like him/her" receiving sarcastic replies the person will be 
uncomfortable to post a comment.

If the only comments posted are from participants affiliated with 
Vendor X I would not write that there is consensus for the draft to 
move forward.

>lot of comments come from a country called gmail, which you won't

There isn't a country called "gmail" in the UN list. :-)  I was not 
pointing to a particular mail thread.  If an Area Director asks for 
the list of countries I'll post it.

>is no barrier to speech in the IETF and that there is no secret

I beg to differ on the "barrier to speech".  There is a message from 
a French reader at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg85043.html  The 
IAOC and Juliao Braga
had some difficulty understanding each other (if I recall correctly 
he asked me why I did not try to help).

There has been discussions about newcomers.  I do not derive any 
benefit by arguing in favor of newcomers except, maybe, getting some 
reviews for IETF work.  My conclusion from the discussions was that 
there are difficulties.

>I would use more analytic language.

I posted that message to [email-masked] by mistake.

If I was having a discussion with someone I am familiar with about 
another person's draft I might write "relatively harmless".  I have 
never sent a private message to an author saying "Yuck".  Please note 
that I am not saying that the word is inappropriate.

If there is a pattern of insulting (private) comments from a 
person(s) who speaks nicely in public, would the regular IETF 
participant be aware of that?  That is what I thought about when I 
responded to the "I trust that doesn't surprise anyone." written by 
John Klensin.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:51:05 -0900

I was apparently involved in this offline whatever and have absolutely no
idea what you're bothered by, or why.  More clarity and less innuendo would
be helpful.

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 11:58:30 +1300

> that someone would tell you that you are not allowed to comment.

Sorry, I should have used the impersonal "one" instead of "you".
I wasn't think about myself.

> will be uncomfortable to post more comments.  If a person sees "someone
> like him/her" receiving sarcastic replies the person will be

Indeed. Sarcasm is not a good tool for professional communication.
Unfortunately, sometimes a perfectly serious remark is (mis)understood
as sarcasm.

> If the only comments posted are from participants affiliated with Vendor
> X I would not write that there is consensus for the draft to move forward.

That's a real problem, but sometimes there is consensus in such a case,
and sometimes there is resignation. It's a matter of judgment, and one tha
a WG Chair has to make sometimes.

> pointing to a particular mail thread.  If an Area Director asks for the
> list of countries I'll post it.
> 
> I beg to differ on the "barrier to speech".  There is a message from a
> French reader at
> had some difficulty understanding each other (if I recall correctly he
> asked me why I did not try to help).

You're talking about a barrier to understanding. That's not what
I meant.

> There has been discussions about newcomers.  I do not derive any benefit
> by arguing in favor of newcomers except, maybe, getting some reviews for
> IETF work.  My conclusion from the discussions was that there are
> difficulties.

Of course there are. That's true in any large organisation.

> If there is a pattern of insulting (private) comments from a person(s)
> who speaks nicely in public, would the regular IETF participant be aware
> of that?  That is what I thought about when I responded to the "I trust
> that doesn't surprise anyone." written by John Klensin.

I really think most humans would be aware of that. I don't see
anything specific to the IETF in such inconsistency.

Regards
    Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:07:40 -0800

Hi Melinda,
At 14:51 26-02-2014, Melinda Shore wrote:
>I was apparently involved in this offline whatever and have 
>absolutely no idea what you're bothered by, or why.  More clarity 
>and less innuendo would be helpful.

In a message to Adrian Farrel and John Klensin I commented as follows:

   "I consider the matter as closed."

I am not bothered by that matter.  I am okay with you sharing the 
private message I wrote (Cc to [email-masked]) with 
[email-masked] if that is helpful.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:37:04 -0800

Hi Brian,
>I wasn't think about myself.

I did not find anything wrong or offensive, etc. in your previous 
message.  I explained why I used "you" as I could not find a way to 
express the idea in an the impersonal manner while trying to explain things.

>Unfortunately, sometimes a perfectly serious remark is (mis)understood

Ok.

>a WG Chair has to make sometimes.

There can be resignation if there is a perception that the WG Chair 
has already made up his mind, e.g. the perception that the WG Chair 
is part of a private club.  It can affect future work and make it 
difficult for the group to reach agreement in future.

>You're talking about a barrier to understanding. That's not what

Ok.

Mikael Abrahamsson understood what I was trying to explain.  He said 
it better than I could.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:03:10 -0800

> If a person posts a comment and receives a sarcastic reply he or she will be
> uncomfortable to post more comments.  If a person sees "someone like
> him/her" receiving sarcastic replies the person will be uncomfortable to
> post a comment.

This is a really important point that merits highlighting, because we
(collectively, not present company in particular) *very* often don't
understand and take to heart.

If Joe Slobotnik gets nasty to Gar Farkle, because that's just what
those two do, and they're both experienced IETFers and "they can take
it", that might be fine for Joe and Gar.  But Abraham Wallflower, the
newbie who's trying to get up the courage to start speaking, might
well look at this and say, "Oh, MAN, I don't want to be treated like
THAT," and go away without every having contributed.

Even worse if Gar Farkle is a relative newbie who's gotten off on the
wrong foot with folks, and those folks feel free to treat him badly
because they think he's a pillock.  If, as SM says, Abe W sees Gar as
"someone like me", it makes it much worse, and then we find ourselves
driving people away... new, young people, many of whom may have good
ideas and be the future of our organization.

Really: let's be careful with that stuff.  I'd love to see us all
learn to treat each other with professional respect, regardless of
what we think of each other.

Barry

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:17:00 +0000

>> I understand that it's hard for people to understand that there is no barrier to speech in the IETF and that there is no secret handshake.
> 
> There are no *formal* barriers. I like that about the IETF, but I don't agree that there are no barriers.

Right. We are an open organisation, but it doesn't mean that participation is always easy and effortless, or even possible for everyone. That is of course a known problem, and we are doing several things to make it easier.

For instance, it is difficult to enter any new culture, but we try to educate & mentor newcomers. 

Cost of attending is clearly a burden for many. ISOC has programs to financially help people who can not come to the meetings, and to actively pull people from, for instance, some regions of the world. Remote attendance has become easier as time goes by, which also helps with the financial problems and far-away participants.

The engineers are sometimes seen as working in their corner, not connecting to the rest of the world. But I think today many of us do try to reach the rest of the world.

I think our discussion culture is pretty hard [as these threads demonstrate I guess], although my observation is that we're improving and at least realising some of these issues. The culture does matter, and I think an environment with soft discussion culture tends to be not just more inviting but also produces better results. But we do have more work to do in this area. I think Lars' post on the types of arguments to avoid, perhaps made tongue-in-cheek, was actually spot on. It is up to all of us to improve the discussion culture. What can *I* or *you* do today to make an IETF discussion go smoother? (And of course, we can still disagree without being disagreeable…)

And of course, everything is relative. I think IETF is relatively easy to access among different technical standards bodies, and definitely easier to access than, say, various processes involving per-country representation. But of course, I may just mix well with the engineers. And my definition of easy to access relates more to making an impact in whatever standard we are working on rather than just getting a seat at a table.

Jari

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:09:03 +0100

> > are symptomatic of why you then perceive yourself as being

The mistreated is not an assumption it is a feeling position felt through
experience within an organisation.  The assumption mislead starts/comes
from the responder-to-suggestions when he/she reads any first
message suggestion (usually then tries to see from whom and think
personal).  Respect is very important in Human to Human (H2H)
communication that
can be sensed easily, but often many start expecting to get respect when
they assume they have a right to suggest. Many H also will expect that they
get not respected when they argue others personal issues in public.

I will add to the subject: right to suggest.

AB

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:30:28 -0800

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:34 AM, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am not comfortable stating that there is consensus on an Internet-Draft
> when participation is from a small number of individuals having some
> affiliation in common.  That creates an appearance of a private club.
>

I understand what you're saying here, but I think if we were to establish
rules that demand a non-small number of diverse individuals for anything to
get published, we would be a lot less able to make progress on much of
anything than is the case now.  I'm sure we would all prefer more obvious
consensus and diversity, but sometimes we have to go with what we can
muster.  It's definitely a worthwhile compromise, in my opinion.

-MSK