ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition

2010-10-15 13:07:39
For the record, what you were told was that if your childish action of 
filtering me extended to telling others to filter me, that would be 
grounds for tort.

Apparently, I am not the only one who feels the consensus process is 
being skewed by key editors filtering of WG Participants that don't 
always agree with with the direction or changes to the WG documents.

While you have all the right to filter your WG mail, that doesn't 
sound like good IETF engineering with the requirement of being open 
minded.  You being a key editor of the nearly all the documents know 
requires you to BACK OFF and take in all the input and try to block 
them in their inputs.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:17 AM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Cc: Barry Leiba
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition

So I strongly object on procedural grounds for authors who kill file
people in general, and for those asking for consensus in particular.
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.

I was threatened with legal action on the basis of tortious interference if I 
continued to disagree with one participant's technical arguments or 
professional conduct on this list.  I have thus elected not to engage that 
person any further in any discourse whatsoever on the list absent a 
withdrawal of that threat and some kind of guarantee of future civility.

I have serious doubts the IESG would find fault in that choice on appeal.  
The IETF has dealt severely with other participants that have taken that 
attitude in the past.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html






_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>