Jim Fenton wrote:
Appendix A.
Since the list of names here is likely to be interpreted as an
endorsement of this draft, I request that my name be removed.
Jim,
That's certainly your choice to make, but I hope you'll change your mind.
I'm responding publicly in order to suggest that the working group has had a
continuing difficulty with reactions to strong debate and resistance to rough
consensus decisions. It is entirely possible to have strong disagreement that
is constructive, rather than divisive, and I keep hoping that the DKIM working
group can find its way to the former, from the latter.
Over the years, I've lost vastly more of these kinds of debates than I've won.
As long as the process was full, frank and honest, then I feel that's the best
one should hope for. If a view that I disagree with develops rough consensus
at
that point, then I think the community need has been well served. Diversity
ensures serious analysis. IMO, /that/ is the community need, as input to a
decision.
I view the Acknowledgements section as an indication of the breadth of
contribution, not the depth of agreement. You have most certainly contributed.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html