Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sat, 08 June 2013 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 57C3521F962D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.513
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.513 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.086, 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 7F3HvtjmYJdD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22b.google.com (mail-pa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D817F21F962B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz11so2536005pad.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WI0NcgEd5h/rNat/AvSM7E5bbaZ6rvKl1zkcf0YyTMQ=; b=VpHTYZlCRSrg28005XbIaGwixy39b7pjoNYLEdnUQ9llCL+NbPHSB1WZXwG0Ni1PjB GT9MmKn0Z3jaLkX9NyDZ1M9ushabct0GgpAEeMnZWTB2VeybQK16zzBdfVw9a2vm5JEh auDiZKOkvOPTiw8qcV6+ftn0AmznTeBy8J4lrgGi7EnUiBqsyf+xzCrZydFKFtK0o0jy F782qXsM6LCT22PpH/t5wE6wF+9HjFb3rhGkQlISaPPeoZ0kx9pbMEQke33aGRNf9kvO 8SDK1RmbGwqfOTWFW2q2+vgHtVFrhgmhEWUAUI5svK892wKhGiS9JbXmv4AL/EEX5RUl 6Ndw==
X-Received: by 10.68.8.68 with SMTP id p4mr3953322pba.168.1370722855911; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (70.71.252.27.dyn.cust.vf.net.nz. [27.252.71.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pe9sm4048941pbc.35.2013.06.08.13.20.54 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51B39224.1030808@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 08:20:52 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure
References: <201306070453.r574r3Wt010088@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> <CADnDZ89FjyPtvJQSqY+kmX+1KYkc0jo1mRpOgkfcEnTH6Vbg6A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA462@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <201306071449.r57EnN5N008971@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <CABCOCHSkLj0409hyeqKNdomOdrScYypi_7a1xWqMEUV9eTPuCw@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307751CA801@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306070901590.4180@egate.xpasc.com> <201306071651.r57Gp9Sf028501@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <7E35BCF0-B218-4A72-82E3-309320113D6A@gmail.com> <710CFEA093055148BDE84DEC@[10.121.6.76]> <6.2.5.6.2.20130608092332.0cb80b58@resistor.net> <51B38C47.5020602@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51B38C47.5020602@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:21:05 -0000

On 09/06/2013 07:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 6/8/13 10:09 AM, SM wrote:
>> As an off-topic comment, there are are alternative ways in making a
>> decision; the best judgement of the most experienced or IETF Consensus.
> 
> I don't think it's off-topic.  Consensus (rough or otherwise) requires
> that at some point people can live with decisions with
> which they disagree.  To the extent that we've seen recent misbehavior
> on this list, it's from only one person who's rejecting the consensus
> and rejecting the process.  It's really annoying but I don't think
> it's particularly disruptive.  If it becomes disruptive, there's a
> rarely-used hammer: the PR action.

I agree. Whatever misbehaviour Melinda means hasn't troubled me;
it must be a user or a thread that I filter to junk.
Disagreement is fine as long as people in the end understand
when they're in the rough and not in the consensus.

There are times when this list annoys me too, but it is far from
a failure IMHO.

   Brian