Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Aside from that, I tend not to aim to be argumentative & wish
more folks on this list had similar discipline. My thanks go
to those with a similar approach. (And yes, that is an indirect
rebuke specifically aimed at aspects of your otherwise overall
excellent contribution to DKIM, i.e a mixed message;-)
Stephen,
For a working group chair to post text like this that (only) targets a
single participant is unfortunate, first, given how freely ad hominems
have been flowing, yet you fail to focus on them too,
Fair enough. I didn't directly do that (until just now), except
in reaction to a mail directed to me from you that I consider was
needlessly argumentative.
and second because
you offer a generic rebuke without any supporting basis.
I think this thread is a supporting basis. I'm sure you
don't. We disagree.
From a process management standpoint, your posting therefore appears to
be seeking to undermine my participation
That's not the case.
In what model of credible IETF working group management is that sort of
behavior by a chair acceptable.
Rhetorical question skipped.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html