Quote from RFC which I guess you didn't read:
" Q: Is this censorship?
A: Only if you believe in anarchy.
What is important is that the rules surrounding
PR-actions exhibit the same properties used by the rest of
the consensus-based process."
Please do not make inferences for which you have no evidence
whatsoever.
I have read the rfc, and even though it follows IETF rules, I
think it lacks proper safeguards. This sort of problem
generally do not pop up in technical issues because it is
rare that only one person has a given set of technical
interest. Technical consensus is thus easier, because even if
people disagree, customer interests are usually bringing them
together, at least in groups.
I'm not glad sombody who didn't even choose to read the relavant
documents is criticizing the process.
Again, you are engaging in a personal attack without any
possible justification.
Can't you discuss with people without assuming they are wrong
or lacking understanding ? You can be perfectly informed and
still disagree on some issues. Grow up.
I am glad to see this much discussion, which easily alays
my fears of
a bad choice being made. I'm sorry if this mail in particular seems
vehment, but I think that's fairly disrespectful to all of
us for you
to criticize a process, and well, frankly blindly doing so
seems to me
a frank effort to do just what RFC 3683 seeks to prevent,
bogging down
the IETF with inpertinent statements for no reason.
Please refrain from making personal attacks.
I don't think my statements are impertinent, on the contrary.
When I first read the RFC, I thought no big deal, this looks
sort of OK and I trust the IETF at large to do the right
thing (how naive, I know).
Now I see how the RFC is being used in real life and I do not
like it at all.
That's nice that you have the luxury to speak for yourself
only, which you seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong)
doesn't apply to others. I certainly read a lot of
contradictions, and unfounded claims, along with outright
disrespect for IETF members and it's documents. Pardon me if
I seem a little bothered.
Well, coming from someone who doesn't seem bothered by making
unfounded claims, this is rather amusing. Do you think you
are showing respect to others that way ?
Apart from disagreeing with Harald, for whom I have a
significant respect (and that may be why I reacted in the
first place : I was disappointed), I don't see what you are
talking about. You can respect people and disagree with them.
I do not generally show respect to documents, especially
those that are untested. I generally favour discussion even
if a document has passed last call.
Process documents in the IETF receive a lot less attention
that technical ones. I wonder how many people were aware of
the existence of this RFC at all, so it is way too early to
consider it gospel, but it makes a good discussion item.
Please be more courteous in your mails, if anything, this
improves the quality of the debate.
Julien Maisonneuve.
Did you read it or didn't you? It's not my fault you chose to say no one
email, and then change your story now. My complaint was that someone who
hasn't read the relevant documents should not be blindly criticizing the
process pure and simple. I'm not taking a position either way DESPITE having
read these documents, but I think it's worth having reasonable discussion,
free from seemingly frivilous exchanges, which this now appears to be.
<snip>
<Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against JefseyMorfin posted>
Harald:
PS: I recommend reading both RFC 3683 and a selection of Jefsey's
messages before making up your mind about the case....
Julien:
I haven't, and I'm not even sure I care.
I'm worried about the process, and about the number of times
it seems to be invoked.
</snip>
-Tom
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf