IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 35793129976 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:19:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06W-4wQvgp05 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x230.google.com (mail-qk0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E05E129766 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 11so136897954qkl.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:19:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=FteD8LD78ht2qJa/b7EEasGRXaeemDvM92xbbb2H38Q=; b=x38C5CFUYL0sAcze92zXQ2x2zwo4S7YHLl8kUYVhXlK4dKYLpoBqZc+SXB+HPhy7KV 2seEK3rwE06t0hf/lJW/ggvEXGgnGdhXIMwbO8J9c95d7j0Og6TSt4Da98zx4lNVGz9w hsFzcufU8+WryDbmBFVo4g3Kxi8jQSYGqn9Ot8u9HplZdVR8AEjJfCE9dhVqYrO0/42l EzMS4o+j/6rkefJviO4C9Fr4Hl+RhwkH/yqKAtMPnskbKbw+9OM+7bdoopA/Zxq36BQY c4cEqgNsKohxGMVRnX0PWokaqo4O84M6KyUKbmWseQogqvsr1EtyLGDcVqqVP1ohk84N dCSw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=FteD8LD78ht2qJa/b7EEasGRXaeemDvM92xbbb2H38Q=; b=UbTEkzlNHFyLb8iV6shqif1NSaQxskNMEUM+uZb5vyE2ahz+rteE+vgxwL/nUifWjg Rt3Bb63ODnAI4N4pSGbbyxAmSHIUGxvY+KtQoV1jTmEHFGvDvWmLct/tugDFSXA15YJC XXf0bubNS8Qif0ojb0P0Bch7GX3U/3irdLybpv7UHAs6tzzuDgylOXx/bJAiVYnAWq5K ebpkQYVjTznT7P4HwFWV/F/CZFR0RqDG9sqf7k/p0i3w+boWdwpULQofssaNbbJtjb2i yprOvCZSo/6hj1yxmCdKSHb+I0m8VmV/SSMiw7/uWBdPXU8RRWigoMQ+Vr9Jk7XfqgY6 zNjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mz+dz/FV+RQbVSBebEUQQSuCkcntnmW5UTLVUySsHEBgln6fGuORzokOH0JHL48Q==
X-Received: by 10.55.42.207 with SMTP id q76mr17627525qkq.35.1487114339638; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:18:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z8sm1207630qkz.42.2017.02.14.15.18.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:18:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <2F13B46F-AFE5-4E49-9724-3737781B4883@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_59F068D9-BB41-4279-A3E7-57DA20F0FA4F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:18:57 -0500
In-Reply-To: <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EaTCwLCsnRcT7jEFe-9BWp7DIoQ>
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 14 Feb 2017 23:19:02 -0000

On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> To Ted's point, indulging folk who 'did not have time' to participate earlier is frankly abusive of all those who did.
> 
> Yeah, I don't find Ted's point at all convincing either. On the other hand, if the WG didn't seek out required expertise and someone does notice a showstopper, that's not abusive. The WG screwed up.

Wow.   You must have a lot more free time than I do, Pete.   My experience is that there are lots of things that get worked on in working groups that I don't even have time to be aware of, and 99% of the time the fact that I wasn't aware of them is not a problem at all.   But 1% of the time it is, and last call is (hopefully) where I become aware of that and say something.   Are you really calling this abusive?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email