Re: [Ianaplan] Draft submission interlude

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

At 18:21 04/11/2014, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 05:57:36PM +0100, Jefsey wrote:
> > This is why it is a cute trick by the stakeholders who know about IETF
> > details
>
>I think you're making an unwarranted _ad hominem_ attack.

No. It is the sophomore's dicovery of a astute trick that experienced 
chairs and draft writers most probably know quite well.

>This is not
>some conspiracy.  The important dates around IETF meetings are
>well-publicised well in advance.

Frankly, Andrew, I am not that much interested in IETF meetings and 
never realized that the IETF contributions were frozen for two weeks 
everytime of few people where paid a travel to drink a few beers together.

>It could well be true that there are participants in this discussion
>that are unfamiliar with those details of IETF processes.  I find it
>virtually impossible to believe that M. Morfin, who has exercised
>several parts of the IETF procedures repeatedly, is so uninformed.

My experience with the IETF is much more with appeals than with Drafts.
Drafts are subject to BCP 78 copyright and I am a Libre person 
believing in Creative Commons.

I am however surprised that people who are familiar as you are and 
others here, never warned me while I repatedly said I will introduce 
a draft and an appeal once the debate would have produced enough 
inputs for my contribution to be the most constructive withn the 
allowed time bracket (before Nov 8 for appealing the charter, Nov 20 
for appealing the Chair's reading of the Charter).

You will note that the Draft under last-call was introduced the last 
possible day.
So everyone was aware of the date constraint when it was decided 
(what seems normal as most will travel to the IETF meeting).

> > But the Last-call will be finished before I can post the proposals I_D. So,
> > I have asked the chairs what is the most productive way to patch the
> > difficulty.
>
>Why don't you outline _briefly_ your views in a mail to the list, note
>that you missed the posting deadline, put your draft up somewhere
>else, and post your draft as soon as posting is permitted again next
>Monday?

This is what I am unfortunately going to do if there is no other alternative.
However, since my Draft substantially differs from the only one 
discussed by the WG, was annouced well in advance, and parallels with 
an appeal, many will take it as a vexation, Something I did not 
intend. So, the best is to take it with a smile as I do in order to 
calm people down, those who accepted to share in a positive draft and 
who are upset tonight.

>  The usual way to respond to a last call is not an alternative
>draft, but if you think the existing draft is really that bad the
>usual way is in fact to respond to the last call by saying, "This is
>so bad that I will offer a completely alternative proposal."

This is something I politely and exactly announced a long ago.
My concern is that my position is a compromise that was difficult to 
obtain and which also depends on Busan parallel talks and votes. Do 
you know what happens on Nov 10th when I am supposed to be able to 
introduced the Dratf?

>If that's _not_ what you're saying, then you can provide detailed
>comments to the list, and not an alternative draft.

I did that, too.
But who cares? The list is so deeply attached to what I/we consider 
as an inadequate reading of the Charte and of the real world 
situation that I need to appeal it to have no regret.

I just tried to cooperatively contribute to a more realistic 
understanding of my own world's position and orientation.
After all this may help on the long range to better understand that 
we cannot mutually easily understand between global communities.

No offence taken, but somewhat tired :-) ...

jfc