+1, especially if you insert "or a working group" after "IESG".
I feel it's unfair to claim there's a private club if your only evidence is
that an idea of yours didn't get support when you shared it. It's also not
correct that this is something to take personally. A better use of one's
energy would be to get a deeper understanding of the "why", which only
enables a more productive outcome the next time.
-MSK
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 01:44:24PM -0500, Hector Santos wrote:
Personal filtering is one thing, advocating it to others as a
general practice is another. That is where the IETF or the WG
process tends to go sour -- when it does appear to be a "private
club," and "ignorance" and "Follow the Chieftain" syndrome is high.
While it is obviously used to move an agenda forward, its not always
pretty, nor fair when it happens and it hasn't been convincing of
late the end results are often better. You may get your "RFC" but
at what cost?
If someone is carrying out a denial of service attack against an
someone on the IESG, recommending that they filter someone who has
proven that they are lacking in clue doesn't seem to me to be the same
thing as a "private club".
- Ted