Subject: Re: [lemonade] The Box, The Picture, and The Reality

From: "Stephane H. Maes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 19:03:53 +0000 GMT

Eric,

Some decisions take in the past and decisions to take a path or another may not always apply well to new problems and requirements. I am concerned that statements about past decisions implying not to revisit the decision isnot appropriate...

Discussion must always take place. I agree that in the absence of new/valid arguments to change conclusion, it should not be changed. However to reject the re-evaluation of an approach is IMHO not a good practice...

Stephane
-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:48:45 
To:"Lemonade" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [lemonade] The Box, The Picture, and The Reality

Things have gotten a bit out of hand here.

I have to apologize as chair that it has taken me 4 days to jump in.
While last Thursday's flame wars raged here, I was a bit preoccupied
(google Brooktrout or Excel and one will see why).

Well, I am back, and I am a bit disappointed at what I saw when I
reviewed the list traffic.

I have seen a number of ad hominem attacks, and not just from a single
individual.

I have seen a bunch of people talk past each other.

I have seen the mistreatment of a new member of the group (things on the
order of "you must be stupid or out of touch to even consider such a
proposal" and "trust us, we have decades of experience in the area").
Likewise, I have seen a lack of preparation (that could be avoided by a
simple application of RTFM and searching the work group mail list
archives).

So, some ground rules:
1. For the folks that have been here from the beginning, please have a
little patience when someone comes in with an idea that is 10 years old,
got a year of intense scrutiny, and got rejected.  Not everyone comes in
with the amount of collective wisdom that you have.  [Note appropriate
use of "you".  I mean "you" here.]

New folks are an important source of new blood, new ideas, and,
hopefully, document authors.

2. For the folks that are new, please review the relevant RFCs, drafts,
and list discussion.  One might want to google the list archive for
things similar to what one wants to do.  Likewise, one might consider
writing a draft - just as the research for a journal paper turns up
prior art and discussion right in the laser beam of what one wants to
do, one might find the idea is an old one.  Of course, if one has a new
angle, then by all means write the draft.

3. For any posting, if the words "you", as in "you are stupid"; "your",
as in "your idea is stupid"; "his/her", as in "his idea is stupid"
appear in the post, I would offer one should revise the text to take out
the personal or personal pronouns.  Why?  The obvious issue is you don't
want us to invoke the nuclear option (see RFC3683; the concept is
banishment) [again, here we mean YOU, the reader].  However, a more
important issue is that if one can restate the problem one has with a
posting in terms of the *problem*, instead of the *person*, then we can
examine the issues and make progress.

Clearly sometimes the recipient "does not get it."  In that case, take
the issue to the chairs; we will deal with it.  Please have patience: we
often work on 3-day cycles, not 30-minute cycles!

4. Since it came up in one of the posts, please remember that anyone can
write an Internet Draft and submit it.  I can write a draft about using
cow manure as transport for message submission for lemonade.  I can even
call that draft "draft-burger-lemonade-submit-patties".  Out of
courtesy, that draft will get posted to the Supplemental Web Page
<http://flyingfox.snowshore.com/i-d/lemonade> and will show up if one
searches the Internet Drafts archive for "lemonade".  However, unless
the draft is a work group draft ("draft-ietf-lemonade-*"), the document
has ABSOLUTELY NO STANDING in the work group.  See the disclaimer on the
Supplemental Web Page.

If you have made it here, that is great, because here follows a message
of substance.

As a reminder, Push E-Mail, a.k.a. using IMAP to submit messages, was
thoroughly examined in detail, with many advocates on both side of the
Push-versus-Pull debate.  In the end, the consensus* of the work group
is that both have advantages and both have disadvantages.  It is true
that both of these approaches can and have been deployed in closed
networks.  However, Push has some fatal flaws that make it extremely
difficult (if not impossible) to deploy on Internet scale.  Thus the
consensus* of the work group is that we will pursue Pull, and will not
revisit Push approaches.

As chair, this particular discussion is closed.

Be aware that postings on the Push-versus-Pull discussion MAY be
considered counter-productive to the progress of the work group.
Clearly, technical issues that have not previously been discussed are
not counter-productive.  Rehashing old arguments is counter-productive.

--
* If one wonders, consensus does not mean 51% vote; it often means that
even the folks "in the minority" understand and usually accept the
decision.  Push-versus-Pull is one of those decisions.  See RFC2026.

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

_____
Stephane H. Maes, PhD,
Director of Architecture - OCS & Mobile, Oracle Corporation.
Ph: +1-203-300-7786 (mobile/SMS/skype); Fax / Office UM: +1-650-607-6296.
e-mail: [email-masked]
IM: shmaes (AIM/Y!) or [email-masked] (MSN Messenger)

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:21:52 -0400

Agreed.  The word choice, "MAY be considered counter-productive," was
very deliberate.  The sentence following explicitly states that new
issues/ideas/thoughts are always welcome.

[Note to Draft Writers - if you use SHOULD or MAY, make sure the reasons
why the 'thing' might not be used get listed in real close proximity to
the statement.]

So there is no confusion:

The thread of tunneling SMTP over IMAP is dead.

The idea of tunneling SUBMIT over IMAP is dormant-to-dead.  That would
take a major breakthrough to bring it back.

The idea of submitting a message over IMAP is dormant.  Again, some
really new idea that we haven't seen in the past two years would have to
happen to bring this one back.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane H. Maes [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2005 3:04 PM
To: Eric Burger; Lemonade
Subject: Re: [lemonade] The Box, The Picture, and The Reality

Eric,

Some decisions take in the past and decisions to take a path or another
may not always apply well to new problems and requirements. I am
concerned that statements about past decisions implying not to revisit
the decision isnot appropriate...

Discussion must always take place. I agree that in the absence of
new/valid arguments to change conclusion, it should not be changed.
However to reject the re-evaluation of an approach is IMHO not a good
practice...

Stephane
-----Original Message-----
From: "Eric Burger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 14:48:45 

[snip]