IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: discussion style and respect

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 11 June 2015 05:30 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4591A90D8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 xfd18gMUr54F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 747921A90D7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1505; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1434000613; x=1435210213; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=Cy5z1OJrTje4KN8OyHgvw0C8Dafr5TLCstk7cD81CAo=; b=ehrs+UThmwhJQ/+++sZ38oPxvctsGJOE3wAkIOm5mqFxwenWr90aOatV ph0/atmiiFgyQlNrtbkUcUuqNgUDLJ1ipKwAJATE6whZVWuCXrVBE09We DOVFwZKl5k499qD+rvE+MowDYajg/074DjBAOfwukByV7KNRKsFcMSeVg s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C0BADGG3lV/xbLJq1chEODHrp9h1sCgXgSAQEBAQEBAYEKhCMBAQEDI1YQCxgJIQICDwJGBg0BBQIBAYgrrlGkKgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZi0OFBgeCaIFFAQSVbIFKh1KIE49sJIIKHIFUPDGCRwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,592,1427760000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="539206304"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2015 05:30:11 +0000
Received: from [10.61.106.232] (dhcp-10-61-106-232.cisco.com [10.61.106.232]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t5B5UAu6005164; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:30:10 GMT
Message-ID: <55791CE5.10407@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:30:13 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: discussion style and respect
References: <3BF40BF3-B7EB-4571-BD7B-D394D4F0CB6C@ietf.org> <20150610204037.6837A1ACD25@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578AECF.5060400@joelhalpern.com> <07E866B5-49AC-403B-90D9-0025E5E18E4B@nominum.com> <55791687.9010002@cisco.com> <215AAAB1-959A-481D-989C-7F83F058AE38@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <215AAAB1-959A-481D-989C-7F83F058AE38@nominum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Lj6V2vmifFJ2BTs2hF7OsqLQK4wffOkSq"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HH-Sp2Nt7leWlHtuq56zhx68B8Q>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 05:30:14 -0000

No.  He just walked away from the process.  He wasn't even in the room
at the time when it happened, because not everyone can go flying to far
away places to participate.  It was not one of our finest moments.

On 6/11/15 7:21 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> In the case I witnessed it was
>> actually WORSE because the chairs interpreted the filibustering as a
>> change of consensus.
> Did someone submit an appeal?  That too is an important part of the consensus process, when it goes wrong. 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email