ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against JefseyMorfin posted

2005-10-04 09:15:04
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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against JefseyMorfin posted, Thomas Gal <=