ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' toBCP (draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)

2006-10-26 02:17:02
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Ned Freed" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; 
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Robert Elz"
<kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' toBCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)


My head is spinning.

The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418

<rant>
No, it does not.  I said so, others said so, and you do not get it.  You are
changing 2418; you may consider the changes trivial and of no consequence,
others are concerned that they may turn out not to be (as happened with
Wasserman).

Previously, I commented on the clarifying clause about warnings off-list; I see
that clause as useful, you see it as unnecessary.  It is a change.

'Progress' has become 'process'; this suggests that if a WG 's process consists
of going round in circles (quite common, actuallly) and I disrupt that in order
to get some progress, then I should be banned, under Carpenter or Wasserman (but
not under 2418).  Ok, this is not so serious but it is a change.

More seriously, Carpenter stops ADs from imposing 7-day suspensions; only Chairs
can do that; why is irrelevant, Carpenter makes changes, Carpenter does not
restore.

etc etc
</rant>

So I am absolutely with kre and Ned Freed on this; originator of last call
please note.

Tom Petch.

and adds the extra powers
created by 3934. I've been told by the author of 3934 that removing
the powers created by 2418 was not intended (even though there is
no other way to read the words in 3934). So I think the question on
the table is: does the community want the union of the powers created
by 2418 and 3934?

I can certainly agree that 4633, for its lifetime, seems to grant
at least these powers. But of course if we go that way, this discussion
will be back again in a year.

     Brian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

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