Re: About Emotional Opinions

I will never allow Willy Tarreau's conjectural predications and emotional
statements to continue.

2023年12月11日(月) 9:46 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:

> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>
> Nevertheless, if you continue in this manner, your participation will be
> disruptive in my opinion as Working Group Chair, and will result in a
> suspension of your ability to post to this mailing list, per RFC3934 (and
> this message serves as a public warning under that process).
>
> My previous message gave clear instructions as to how to productively
> engage in this community. Please consider it carefully.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> > On 10 Dec 2023, at 7:22 pm, 姓名 <falsandtru@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Therefore, good proposals are well-described; requiring participants
> to surmise or deduce what you are proposing makes it more likely that you
> will fail to gain their interest. The number of people that didn't
> understand your proposal should be taken as an indication that it needs to
> be better-described, not that they are making bad assumptions, have
> emotional opinions, etc. Merely offering source code is not a good way to
> make a proposal.
> >
> > This is just a generalization. No matter how many times I explained it
> as fact this time, I was very annoyed by the repeated perversion in favor
> of preconceived notions. Again, speculation based on assumptions is
> permitted, but predications based on assumptions is not permitted. Can you
> say that you allow predications based on assumptions?
> >
> > > Furthermore, please avoid ascribing motivations to others, since this
> is so often a source of misunderstanding and contention. In particular,
> characterising those who are trying to help you by explaining the
> constraints which might affect your proposal as "emotional" is needlessly
> inflammatory and, if it continues, may be cause for action under RFC3934.
> >
> > This is a clear error. The emotional statement is the stated result, not
> the motive. The emotional statement is not to be inferred, but is the
> written word itself. Therefore, your opinion is wrong from the very
> beginning. Based on your premise, there is no emotional expression that
> appears in any text and there is no emotional statement. This is clearly a
> wild error. Trying to forcefully justify an obvious injustice leads to
> ridiculous claims like this one.
> >
> > 2023年12月10日(日) 9:36 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>:
> > I don't know who I'm addressing this to, since my understanding is that
> the name given translates to "name." Of course, there is no requirement to
> give your real name on this mailing list, but you may find that anonymity
> makes it less attractive for some to engage in discussion with you.
> >
> > With that said -
> >
> > Succeeding in standards work requires engagement in good faith. As has
> been pointed out, everyone participates here because they want to; no one
> is compelled to respond to a message, or put work into an effort they
> aren't interested in.
> >
> > Therefore, good proposals are well-described; requiring participants to
> surmise or deduce what you are proposing makes it more likely that you will
> fail to gain their interest. The number of people that didn't understand
> your proposal should be taken as an indication that it needs to be
> better-described, not that they are making bad assumptions, have emotional
> opinions, etc. Merely offering source code is not a good way to make a
> proposal.
> >
> > Furthermore, please avoid ascribing motivations to others, since this is
> so often a source of misunderstanding and contention. In particular,
> characterising those who are trying to help you by explaining the
> constraints which might affect your proposal as "emotional" is needlessly
> inflammatory and, if it continues, may be cause for action under RFC3934.
> >
> > Finally, please avoid using the mailing list for administrative matters,
> such as e-mail delivery issues.
> >
> > The area you are considering has had considerable previous discussion
> and experimentation over several years, and other participants are
> attempting to give you the benefit of that experience. You will find that
> if you engage in good faith and accept that you may still need to learn
> more, others will do the same.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Mark Nottingham, Working Group Chair
> >
> >
> > > On 10 Dec 2023, at 5:37 am, 姓名 <falsandtru@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > pretty clear now that
> > > > nothing constructive can get out of this thread at all anyway
> > >
> > > There are no facts to support this and it is off the subject of
> emotional opinion. The subject is whether this mailing list allows such
> replies despite the fact that it is very difficult to have a constructive
> discussion on the emotional responses excerpted below.
> > > > 50-100 bytes per what ? Per header ? per request ? Per 10kB of
> headers
> > > > sent ? You just sent raw numbers without *any* explanation.
> > >
> > > This is a breakdown of the compression ratio and the explanation is
> given first. He just didn't understand the explanation.
> > >
> > > > Huh ? No sure what you mean.
> > > > Please stop rehashing this non-sense. I'm trying to help you get your
> > > > proposal easier to review and understand. If you want to insult me
> all
> > > > the time, go find someone else to review it.
> > >
> > > He is just misunderstanding and getting angry on his own. I have
> already explained that many of the problems you point out are not unique to
> my proposal, as they would occur even if compression ratios were improved
> in other ways.
> > >
> > > > I have more productive things to do of my time.
> > >
> > > This is a supremely emotional and unnecessary statement.
> > >
> > > It is impossible to continue a constructive discussion when you make
> emotional statements like this alone, assuming that what has already been
> explained to you by email has not been explained to you. Or are these
> statements allowed on this mailing list?
> > >
> > > 2023年12月10日(日) 2:53 Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>:
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2023 at 06:05:33PM +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > (...)
> > > > I would recommend that you reset the discussion, and come up with an
> > > > updated coherent proposal that tries to address the questions that
> Willy
> > > > asked.
> > >
> > > All, I just wanted to let you know that I've stopped responding to
> > > these provocative messages as it has become pretty clear now that
> > > nothing constructive can get out of this thread at all anyway, and
> > > I don't think there's any point pursuing this "discussion".
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Willy
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>