Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 07 January 2021 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE74D3A11AF; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aOfmnRiZO6RE; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-f41.google.com (mail-lf1-f41.google.com [209.85.167.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44B9B3A11A2; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-f41.google.com with SMTP id h22so15124146lfu.2; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:38:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bVnd1tsydqjiOhGhYlmH8Nepuh12KZ0tQKvFVPCyH2A=; b=MaP4nP94XAMHiFjmAjBrXK/c+4KnwtKiVOvVjps4WVyLDl/o+5vqVYQVqHN4TLaMcu YFei1v4X6ZVMwIKNJYEMth+dj/UzDWi03txtkqWRPKnHsV5pfjn2A2g/Jv0vVHNMxrQ+ KQGKljVuN1VKK+E1CwCCDda4InoJwAvGiaNf21fWq7bLEM1Th5uE30lorHV7qnI4zjJo NKkAxfn4hgcmHNRYCAiQf3eyhYYEAhxhnNlTc75wU/tPfB2CFuKjVVoxmjcBMvs9LHtO 74BHYJcULZffIq0sboWstjxEQt7Y3xjyxUXPzf24m9u7mJ21dTUtKi8JlsmTN9tPJhfy 7uVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531ZvMk5iLNmaACOKYJBVyCph7lDpvnMgI8JNJHl6VtW2PJSeGio /sxaUMPXJjbNHdZa0UNT8lqCBEt++NPw20LSfWk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfIrXQrkYCm1FCj+UkVohG8GfwPIrs8fD6xiKEe6ad6CTDBak3M23moeNkwyXPqJ8TV1GxQ9YAaIiNikeX1jw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:316:: with SMTP id a22mr4060272ljp.473.1610030301262; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:38:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfPW6Oki-4Ebgk9yS1H-r19PBTqE8nDMTFjUKY38JKgrfQ@mail.gmail.com> <acf32e64-f1fa-25df-b677-2e279ffeb2cc@gmail.com> <CADyWQ+HQk2+o+YweayH5t3GHua79zUBB1=1VFr6XXLgPt6kO0g@mail.gmail.com> <d8dd3487-48b7-bd35-90fb-60c1d62eb39f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <d8dd3487-48b7-bd35-90fb-60c1d62eb39f@gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 09:38:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJJza3qv72XJda2jHV4RfrfgGkyJmzrtjPkprVsvzQ63jQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>, Seth Blank <seth=40valimail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WNtrNKYeIRJ0_o-Ye9AAD5Xp5-8>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:38:25 -0000

Supporting what Tim said, and expanding a bit (and, yes, it's general,
not specific): If we all do our best to stick to the technical issues
and to keep our tone neutral, then it's easier for the chairs to
respond appropriately to cases of inability to conduct civil
discourse, and to target that response appropriately.  Best efforts to
understand each other, to respond to the points, and to avoid
implications that anyone's concerns are trivial will make it possible
for the chairs to manage the discussion and to take appropriate action
when they have to.  If you think something's been hashed out enough
and that further discussion along the same line isn't useful, don't
say that publicly: let the chairs know what you think, and let them
handle it from there.

Barry

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/2021 8:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
>
> You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past few months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step back and take a second read.
>
> This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail should work
>
>
> Tim,
>
> This has nothing to do with differences in opinion.  It has to do with his persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of disagreement.
>
> Disagreement is fine.  Abuse is not.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> dcrocker@gmail.com
> 408.329.0791
>
> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter
> American Red Cross
> dave.crocker2@redcross.org