Re: [Gendispatch] agenda for gendispatch at ietf116

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

Hi, ok.

This seems really escalated.

I would say I do think the IETF wastes time on procedural issues. Raising
that point doesn’t seem remotely rude to me.

“I don’t care” in this context means “tilting at windmills”, not that I
will win a debate or something.

I think the email client stuff is fair, because I really can’t read it,
even when every other line is something I wrote. This is the organization
in charge of parsing the stuff.

Lastly, I only talk about the documents. There’s always a way to make that
personal, though.

In this case, I believe the chairs should let it go. I could forward email,
but that’s not cool.

thanks,
Rob


On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 22:55 Kirsty Paine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Rob,
>
> It is absolutely fine to think the work should be not be dispatched.
> However, there are many ways to put that view forward that aren't perceived
> as disruptive or rude.
>
> The following is not an exhaustive list, but in the interests of us all
> learning and moving forward, here are some of the things that are not in
> the spirit of, or appropriate for, gendispatch's discussions:
> - To say that the idea is "wasting IETF time" or "not worth addressing",
> when the chairs have given it agenda time. The result of that discussion
> might be "do not dispatch", but it's not helpful to reach a dispatch
> outcome, or to the WG, to say the discussion shouldn't happen at all.
> - To say things like "I don't care", which comes off as dismissive, and
> doesn't tell us anything about your view on the dispatch question (e.g.
> plenty of work I don't care about should still be dispatched).
> - To go in on someone's email client and how it treats URLs; this is very
> off-topic, and comes off as aggressive (compared to merely asking for the
> correct URL, which would be appropriate)
> - To say that someone's way of communicating is "completely
> incomprehensible" comes off as insulting to that person, and doesn't
> advance the dispatch discussion - whereas asking for more clarification
> would advance the discussion, without being rude.
>
> This is not an exhaustive list, but I hope provides some understanding to
> you and for the benefit of the group. I'm happy to discuss further F2F or
> over video, where I think it can be easier to understand.
>
> Kirsty
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 2:38 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi, noted.
>>
>> No one said anything to me off-list.
>>
>> It should be fine to hold the opinion that the idea proposed here should
>> go nowhere, though.
>>
>> So, yes, could you explain it? What’s wrong here? I just said this topic
>> is not worth spending time on, and kind of a rathole. What’s the problem?
>>
>> sorry for the trouble,
>> Rob
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 22:18 Kirsty Paine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> The messages you have sent to the gendispatch list this morning are
>>> insulting, dismissive, and disruptive to the WG process as per RFC3934.
>>> I'll happily explain exactly which parts are not conducive to
>>> gendispatching Rich's work with you directly, if that's needed. But as
>>> others have indicated, to you on list and then privately to the chairs,
>>> this disruption needs to stop; so, per RFC3934, please consider this a
>>> public warning.
>>>
>>> To the WG, please excuse the delay in communicating this; I was on a
>>> flight, asleep. What a delightful thing to land to...
>>>
>>> Kirsty
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 12:29 PM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Lars,
>>>>
>>>> You are a reasonable person and I have read your code.
>>>>
>>>> I think the IETF would do well to respect running code a bit more. URLs
>>>> work, don’t break them. The IESG/IAB thing isn’t all roses, but I am not
>>>> sure what would be better.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely: “please stop it”,
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 20:17 Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26. Mar 2023, at 11:45, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> > I am all for procedural backflips and tolerance, but this one has
>>>>> already been declined, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I declined the BOF request only because it came in much too late, and
>>>>> not for any other reason. I suggested to the proponents to consider taking
>>>>> the discussion to GENDISPATCH if they wanted a slot at 116.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lars
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Gendispatch mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>>>>
>>>