Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A742512007A for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 xojPuUvaOFwP for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A7E12006F for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.183.151]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id x8I17Iie029233 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1568768850; x=1568855250; i=@elandsys.com; bh=1O6lXCbAwKm4InLxbP1uK1ogfjRK5dv4P0ilnculqfg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=RPxb5NruvqtCOnPV/yz+LVz3ehFhKiBxc8mV1voD8ngPTfoooNxAzErQ3XOHhNU+t qkex72EDIzYJky3WNNP/CBqj9vdtcRFn1XOw+dFN7fv2aq/mgu6BVCugd/JP4rKgcq Mvggs9+JO30Ud7P7kV7lUjwj0H7VfgHII6tNoVAs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190917172928.0c122ce0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:06:51 -0700
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNP3F-9er-Uv01bkmuLpwYq2ju3nUH0dH3gqFMFuz_Gpw@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CALaySJ+BEoDd5aas9VfAmfcF+H_54w4ETNafVwFAObhY_A2v-Q@mail.gmail.com> <C90E6D6D-D058-40A5-AA3B-2D2002077016@episteme.net> <CALaySJJggQqYhVHSdKCx4BvpiR31oodx9C9NkzfMoFGbUv+gmg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJKxbwYXnE7gcgwmuBUWg_Q+QSx-yYtTCOLoQesB6JLojg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJJh7zvuuuxcs-kE=LaaZP1aXiaT3HpQ30tt4DNOMMP0oQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMrnPv9AMhQgv4ciq2DypyB_rkqdwNkyuXgNqyHVGcpzQ@mail.gmail.com> <03d701d56d8d$5849b720$08dd2560$@olddog.co.uk> <CABcZeBMyzwXu+=w511aJcOPEu1CJ7PqSfyq3y6ya+j0DPQkSVg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190917153221.0780aa08@elandnews.com> <CABcZeBNP3F-9er-Uv01bkmuLpwYq2ju3nUH0dH3gqFMFuz_Gpw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/-tw28rpSojwFqi9YdPa1qSBRjmo>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Fwd: The "eligibility" list, and a virtual meeting
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:07:32 -0000

Dear Mr Rescorla,
At 05:03 PM 17-09-2019, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>Well, it's always difficult to explain analogies, but there are also 
>people from

Yes.

>I mostly agree it's a fact [0]. I'm unpersuaded that it's a problem 
>that needs solving. There are a number of facts that some members of 
>the community might prefer were otherwise (for instance, some might 
>not like our IPR policy); that does not make them problems that the 
>IETF needs to address.

I agree that it would take more than one signatory to initiate a 
recall petition.  I mentioned previously that it would also have to 
be accompanied by a justification.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy