Re: [Gendispatch] draft-knodel-terminology-02

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 8/14/20 1:47 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:

> On 14 Aug 2020, at 0:20, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> Well, that's not the normal way IETF does things, and I struggle to 
>> think of any other time in my 30 year history with IETF, when 
>> participants have been told to NOT post to a mailing list until a 
>> meeting is held.
>
> I am quite sure I've heard chairs say in the past, "We're spinning our 
> wheels on this topic. We're meeting at the f2f in a few weeks; let's 
> put it on the agenda and hold off until we can discuss in person." And 
> we've participated in a lot of WGs together.
>
> And to be clear: "asked", not "told". As per my message:
>
> "As to draft-knodel-terminology: The initial discussion (which I ask 
> you to please hold until the interim, which Francesca and I will 
> schedule ASAP) is about how to dispatch the document."
>
> Perhaps the second statement was a bit stronger:
>
> "So, again, let's leave this topic alone until the interim."
>
> But still, other than the topics that I said were out of scope of the 
> WG (the merits of the IESG statement, the commentary on tone and 
> style, the definition of "racism"), this was an (admittedly strong) 
> request of one of the chairs, not an order. The latter isn't in my job 
> description (or so I've been told).
>
>> It makes me wonder if the idea is to try to use the meeting as a way 
>> to control or restrict the subsequent discussion.   And even if the 
>> context shouldn't be discussed here, it's hard to ignore it.
>
> I can only speak for myself and say there were no such motives on my 
> part.

Thanks for your response.  I suppose we could all use a bit of a 
break.   I'm sure it will be an interesting meeting.

Keith