Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

[Tao Effect <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 24, 2013, at 5:13 PM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> On Tue, December 24, 2013 12:25 pm, Tao Effect wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Dan Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> The lack of opportunity to raise objections is due to the fact that he
>>> (and the others who recently subscribed to CFRG because they follow him
>>> on twitter and heeded his call to join the crusade) were not involved at
>>> the time.
>> 
>> Sorry, I don't quite follow your logic.
>> 
>> Are you saying that the appointment was made without a request for
>> feedback because some people were not subscribed to this list?
> 
>  No, that would be ludicrous.  I'm saying that the complaints today of
> people who were not involved in the CFRG at that time and who still
> do not understand the process involved ring particularly hollow.

OK, then explain why no opportunity was given to raise objections (at that time).

Is that just how the CFRG operates? The chair (or co-chair) picks the person they want to co-chair and the rest of the community has no say in it?

This reply of yours doesn't answer that question.

>> The issues that have been raised are nothing but "fashionable poses"?
>> 
>> How do you figure that?
> 
>  Because the complaints in this thread about the NSA are not doing
> anything to address the issue of pervasive monitoring. In fact, as
> Stephen pointed out, you're detracting from that important effort with
> this stupid crusade and your (excellent quote) "infantile gibberish".
> 
>  What you're doing is striking a pose, and giving yourself the opportunity
> to pat yourself on the back for your stand against the NSA. You're not
> actually helping out here though.

OK, so do I understand your position correctly, that the complaints about the
conflict of interest with the NSA co-chairing an organization whose work it
wants to sabotage are without any merit?

You're saying that that issue is irrelevant, do I understand you correctly?


>> What is the "conspiracy theory"?
>> 
>> What are the "fallacious ad hominem attacks"?
> 
>  Read the thread.

Yes, I did. Did you?

I don't see any conspiracy theories or "fallacious ad hominem attacks".

Point them out or stop inventing things, please.

> And read the Tao of the IETF.

I did (a while ago).

>  Merry Christmas to all!

Yes, Happy Holidays to all!

Cheers,
Greg

--
Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.