On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
wrote:
In fact, I have been looking at RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 (a) as an
reason to appeal based on the principal key editors are knowingly
filtering input from WG participants. I know both Dave and Murray are
doing this and both are key editors of this document. This creates
problems and also unnecessarily increasing the volume of input from
people who don't believe they are being heard.
You're certainly welcome to file an appeal, if you think there's been
a procedural problem. The first step, of course, is to bring the
issue to the attention of the chairs (which you have), and the next is
to discuss it with the responsible AD (Sean).
I'm actually pretty certain that neither Dave nor Murray is deleting
your (or anyone's) messages outright, though I can't guarantee that
they're reading everything you have (or anyone has) to say. This is
meant as a general statement to all: you can increase the chances that
people will read your posts if you post clearly, concisely, and calmly
(the three Cs?), and avoid invective and excess.
In any case, as I said in reply to Mike, the chairs are paying
attention to the whole discussion, and we will be evaluating consensus
fairly. Note that that still means that even if one or two people
disagree with something, rough consensus might go against them. It
also means that if other participants agree with the objections and
say so, the consensus might go that way as well.
Barry, as fair chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html