william(at)elan.net wrote in spf-discuss:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, wayne wrote:
The idea that they are going to hold us back until Microsoft
has a chance to catch up, and to discount the last 1.5 years
of SPF deployment in order to make things "fair" is, well, I
wish I could say it was surprising, but it probably isn't.
These "dubious" activities of Mr. Hardie stop precisely today.
although the kind of duality and hiding of real purpose that
Ted can word-smith with his "politically correct" statements
is just amazing - he must have missed his calling of
political speech-writing and is now making up for it in his
IESG work ....
Yes, Mr. Hardie had enough rope to hang himself, now he did it.
I would recommend people brush up on nuances in IETF
procedures (get Bruce to tech you :)
We don't need Bruce to read RfC 2026 chapter 6.5. And in 6.5.2
"process failures" I find:
| If an individual should disagree with an action taken by the
| IESG in this process, that person should first discuss the
| issue with the ISEG Chair.
Okay, that says "Cc: Brian" in big red letters, so I do this.
Bye, Frank