Re: how to contact the IETF

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Tue, 10 February 2009 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA6E3A67E2 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:30:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1XG6bhVo0JCd for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7F6C3A6C8E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D9C82FEA481 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:30:04 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:30:02 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: how to contact the IETF
Message-ID: <20090210143002.GK13560@shinkuro.com>
References: <mailman.81.1234221068.5094.ietf@ietf.org> <789dbae90902091529t2b419cf5jc87bb7fb65564c5@mail.gmail.com> <20090209234503.GN376@mip.polyamory.org> <20090210122039.GD13560@shinkuro.com> <sdprhq4con.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <sdprhq4con.fsf@wes.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 10 Feb 2009 14:30:02 -0000

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:57:28AM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:

> And the question is: did all those people writing in read and understand
> the draft and fully understand the issue?  Or are they just
> regurgitating a "do this" announcement.  How do you weigh a bunch of
> uninformed responses against a fewer number of informed ones.

Surely that's a decision that has to be made by the shepherd of the
document?  I know that when I have to evaluate the consensus in a WG,
figuring out whether someone's objections are ill-informed is one of
my jobs.  Sometimes that involves asking follow-up questions to the
person who posts.  (Like, for instance, "Have you read this draft?")

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.