[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Confirming vs. second-guessing

2008-03-17 15:41:12

On 3/16/2008 7:36 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ...
chastisement .. is off-target.

At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public
information many people have concluded in good faith that something
went wrong.

I agree with this. Something went wrong.

Asserting that the problems are FUD does not help anyone resolve

I'm sorry you didn't actually read what I wrote. I did not refer to
the problems as FUD.  I called one specific statement by LD FUD and
hogwash. The statement was an attempt to use an emotional response to
an unlikely or improbable action by the IAB sometime in the future to
gain an outcome (e.g. don't let this dangerous precedent stand) that
matched his personal belief.

What would you call it if not FUD?  Never mind.  Substitute "an
emotional appeal" for FUD and "This is an absurd extrapolation of
what the IAB may do in the far future" for hogwash and see if you
like the text better.

I guess I should respond to this.  Why would the extrapolation be 
absurd?  Where is it stated that a confirmation body cannot seek such 
information?  One of the IAB requirements is to provide a summary of 
feedback on a candidate.  From there to asking for verbatim feedback is 
not a stretch.  I am not saying IAB would ask for this.  I am saying one 
of the confirmation bodies could ask for this and the nomcom would be in 
the same situation.

Expressing incredulity does not work in such situations.  I have tried.



IETF mailing list

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