IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Tue, 27 August 2013 20:42 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4CD11E81F8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DjTmpaKO0tXJ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD2D11E81F0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1377636172; x=1409172172; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WcVzF8y0okt8XNl/FqgYqzFz3QGWvF0n47JT34Yftxo=; b=VyuIidMXFHXgfhSKUe5PTlF6x6olX3EF8SSIbljepi0+jzrp3X8AkF6f PKpi0rnW9htv7tTlx659NoWBvDX/EMVhLVPZvZkWFjvvV4+H5HaZhIcGt WldjO/IadSJ8a0RgBf8lEpjtWFtOku9YlEzgBBC8b+FPsAoZiq88txZeC Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7180"; a="50429181"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 27 Aug 2013 13:42:35 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7180"; a="591640836"
Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 27 Aug 2013 13:42:35 -0700
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.146.2; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:42:34 -0700
Message-ID: <521D0F39.4040201@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:42:33 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
References: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408224060750E@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <CADnDZ891f9z=snhx2mP1oqZK+iPih79LDhHrFHu1gjT4mkMbhw@mail.gmail.com> <38BAB050-5B83-4530-84E8-FBF27E822C7F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|1ad6c5e007d1f092769939d09c0615b9p7QBpW03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|38BAB050-5B83-4530-84E8-FBF27E822C7F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775267379@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAPv4CP8ORvFQXsRV2vZqk46S4+ZkLm+GeV3wxdUvcmZ96yyEVA@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775267681@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <20130827190857.GA48013@verdi> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775267BF5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775267BF5@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1]
Cc: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:42:57 -0000

On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie<john@jlc.net>  wrote:
>    
>>    I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
>>      
> Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area.   Lucky me... :)
>    

See the message I just posted. Yes, the additional repetitions make it 
take longer, but really it's not so hard to say, "Yep, that's already on 
my list of issues" and toss the repetitious message aside.

On 8/27/13 12:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>    
>> I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
>> rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
>> we are discussing here.
>>      
> IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms.  The SAA is responsible
> for how things are said.  The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever
> -- would be responsible for the substance.

On 8/27/13 12:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
> Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant-
> at-arms's.
>    

Yeah, again, that's me. Also see my recent message.

That said, I do wish it didn't take intervention on my part. I wish 
people would realize they're being repetitive. I wish people would stop 
responding to the repetition. (Neither is going to change my opinion of 
the consensus.) But then again, I also wish I had a pony.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email