Todd,
I've received several complains from people that think that you are crossing
the limit again and being off-topic with this thread and I seriously agree
with them.
Consequently I warn you. If you keep going on this, I will apply a new ban
(two weeks, as it will be your second one in a very short period of time).
Regards,
Jordi, acting as IETF Sergeant-at-arms
De: todd glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:37:49 -0700
Para: Theodore Tso <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
CC: "nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
Hey Ted - the more I thought about this post of yours the more it annoyed
me. You see - when a WG chair doesn't want someone saying something in their
WG and they control the number of players in that WG, they will always
control the consensus such as it is.
The point is that there is no where to permanently register a dissenting
opinion in an effort or IETF program now that you claim that the charter for
the IETF(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG mailing list is restricted.
The IETF needs IMHO one general list for everything that doesn't fall under
the rubric/charter/umbrella of some WG and their list, and personally after
NETWORK was shutdown I thought that this was it.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: <nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 02:39:46PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
So then Ted are you formally saying that it is inappropriate to discuss
IETF
operations or its processes on the IETF(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG mailing list?
If you have a specific and actionable suggestion regarding IETF
direction, policy, meetings, and procedures, where there is not a more
appropriate e-mail venue (such as the IPR wg list), then it is
certainly, appropriate for the IETF list.
Your recent postings, alas, have not met this test.
The problem with the IPR working group is simply that Harald kicks
people
off for disagreeing with him or his very limited charter. He doesn't
want to
hear about expanding the charter or how these other issues fit into the
IPR
Working Group and in doing so he is violating my and others
participatory
rights as well as our First Amendment rights I believe too.
First Amendment rights only apply when the US Government restricts
speech. It does not apply anywhere else. In general, you have been
making various legal claims without being a lawyer, and fairly wild
ones which make it very clear that you don't know what you are talking
about. For what it's worth, be advised that I know of know legally
enforceable "right" that you might have towards participating in any
IETF forum, and certainly if you persist in sounding like someone who
does not know what they are talking about, no one is required to
listen to you, either --- and more and more people may in fact decide
that it is wise for them to exercise their right to ignore you.
Regards,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf