"Hallam-Baker, Phillip via RT" <campaigns(_at_)fsf(_dot_)org> writes:
The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision.
This is not accurate. We explicitly included the closing comment date in
all of our postings and have made no effort to encourage people to
ignore that deadline or re-open the decision. Individuals who ignore the
deadline are doing so on their own.
I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the already
known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2)
perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to him
but he has no intention of listening to us.
We very much value the work and expertise of the IETF. It's true that
comment periods are unfortunately often a one-way street -- but I don't
agree with attributing that quality to RMS or the FSF. We in fact have
been reading many of the responses to the comments and are interested in
the IETF's rationale in light of the arguments we advanced.
I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that is
CC'd to campaigns(_at_)fsf(_dot_)org straight to the bit bucket. The fact
that it
is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign page rather
than one noise maker does not make it any less disruptive.
We can't really take responsibility for people who choose to ignore the
deadline. But I'll have the page unpublished from our site, which should
stop additional unwelcome comments from being sent. Our intent was to
encourage people to participate in the process, not to circumvent or
disrespect it.
--
John Sullivan
Manager of Operations
GPG Key: AE8600B6
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf