Re: An observation

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>]

Thom,

At 8:04 PM -0800 12/23/96, Thom Stark wrote:
>> of a proposed CORE-MoU in the posted document. I think the general
>> details are probably not something we are anxious to change, but I'm
...
>It seems to me that when Mr. Metzger speaks in terms of "details"
>as something that "we are not anxious to change", he is both speaking
>specifically for the IAHC, rather than himself, and making it pretty
>clear that the IAHC has, indeed, made up its mind on the issue and that
>the "draft" is being looked on by the IAHC as a much more finished
>document than they have been insisting it is.

	Public advocacy prior to publication.  Interesting mode you've
chosen.

	Even in this new age of varying journalistic styles, you are
showing considerable uniqueness.  Going even further, to over-interpret
simple statements and to form substantive opinions without talking directly
to the principals is really quite exceptional.  Using the kinds of
evaluative criteria about you that you, yourself, seem to be applying, I
might find myself thinking that you were more interested in exacerbating
divisiveness than in providing balanced review...

	Folks might have noticed that I've been making a point of avoiding
personal confrontation and attack.  But having a professional journalist
send a note like yours is pretty irritating.

	Here's a question for you:  how would you like to spend a couple of
months on a topic that is highly politicized before you even get started,
culminating in two 12 hour group sessions, a public exchange, and then a
marathon writing/editing/reviewing cycle for 3 days, finally issuing a
specification that attempts to compromise among myriad constraining and
sensitive issues, looking forward to roughly one month for public review,
followed by 2 weeks for making revisision, but THEN be told that you should
have issued the first draft with the idea of planning to do major re-writes?

	One suspects, Mr. Stark, that you do not enjoy sweating over an
article and then having an editor throw it out and tell you to start over.
Well, neither do I.  One might summarize your position in such a situation
as being "not anxious to change".  Applying it to the IAHC work, therefore,
is quite accurate.  I, for one, am not "anxious" to make changes, but that
doesn't mean I won't lobby to make them, if I see the need.

	For you to offer assessments of the whole committee's position,
based on a relatively few messages from a small number of members, is
downright bizarre.  I would directly request you document such an assertion
and that you show some care in the kinds of sweeping assessment you make,
since that is what professional journalists are supposed to do.

	This topic has a two year history.  This topic has extensive
commentary from all sectors.  This topic is just plain difficult.  Please
show some respect for its complexity.

>And I'm here to tell you that *my* perception is that *you* (the IAHC)
>appear pretty high-handed, stubborn and unresponsive, thus far.  In

	Thom, I look forward to equally fair and balanced language in your
article.  One might wonder at the extent to which your evaluative
vocabulary might, equally, be applied to your own work, based on your
public utterances.  (No, I don't think it's pleasant to be on the receiving
end of such silliness, either, Thom.)

>particular, the constant referral to the wording of "the draft", as if
>it were holy writ, bothers me a great deal.  As a professional writer,

	Thom, you clearly lack much experience in public processes like
this.  If you had any, you'd discover that the linguistic modes, here, are
really quite common.  Monitor an array of IETF lists for background,
please, before making such glib (and inaccurate) assessments.

>I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the

	Ok:  You are wrong.

>concept of a draft proposal is one of a document put forward as a kind
>of stake in the ground--a concretized set of ideas serving as a point

	Please send me a copy of your article two weeks before final
submission.  I will be glad to return it one week later, indicating the
massive changes that you will be expected to make as part of a group
consultative process.

>I also hope that you will not let the artificial March deadline push
>you to prematurely close the colloquoy.  I'd much rather see you get
>this puppy right the first time than see you bring a fundamentally
>flawed STANDARD in "on time".

	And I'm sure the editors receiving your article will be glad to
change the deadline, giving you any amount of time you wish, to 'get the
article right'.

d/


(read the last line, please)
----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org

Also:  IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions