Hello;
Receiving multiple queries as to why I made a decision makes me wonder
if I made it properly and articulated it properly. Thus, in the
course of a sleepless
night fueled by jet-lag, I looked into the matter further with the
results as you have seen.
I still think that a simple support / do not support response is more
appropriate in this matter
and regret that it seemed necessary to expend list bandwidth on my
reasoning.
Regards
Marshall
P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not
claim that honor.
On Jan 23, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Gray, Eric wrote:
Eliot,
Ideally, nobody is "just some person with a random opinion"
and the implication associated with asserting that someone stands
out because of this is disingenuous - to say the least.
If we do in fact learn anything from the reply you elicited,
it is that there is more than one reason why the question is not
appropriate - for this kind of question and at this point in the
discussion.
I do not doubt that you asked the question out of a sincere
desire to find out what the answer is. However, there are plenty
of people - here in the IETF as well as everywhere else in the
world - who ask "why" for no other reason than to put the person
expressing their opinion on the defensive.
Consequently, I believe it is innappropriate to publicly
question - or otherwise challenge - the opinions being sought in
a discussion like this. As the announcement said, the IESG will
be making a decision, it was the IESG that solicited comment and
it should be up to the IESG to determine what level of detail is
required with those comments and when additional information is
needed. I suspect that the IESG will solicit additional input if
they feel that there is a large minority opinion that they feel
should be analyzed in detail.
If people genuinely want to know what the basis for any
individuals comments are - or wants to know more than a person
was willing to say initially, then they should ask privately.
If the individual in question receives enough private questions,
perhaps they will - as in this case - choose to give a public
answer.
Or perhaps not.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
--> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:23 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Scott Hollenbeck; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
--> ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC
--> (Jefsey) Morfin
-->
--> Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but
--> the ombudsman
--> for the IETF list. And so he speaks with some authority.
Also, he
--> doesn't come to rash conclusions, and so I for one value
--> his considered
--> opinion. And that's why I prodded him for more. And I'm more
--> enlightened because of it.
-->
--> Eliot
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf