Re: hampering progress

Michael Thomas <> Wed, 21 April 2021 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BA33A3269 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FFAhbQlGBevf for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFE723A3267 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g16so16401189pfq.5 for <>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=mGMV42x8MnMnLfrsDXkY9EOR4N1nSaNYduset9rJRjE=; b=T6gPwPo39Xlqo0v5fIo5hRS8xLjDwrEuoRonYeUGJaY1SHEuBoZ0pUfL+6nOxgUd9h Vdr6pcsrQDmCKKZ7MHQhobhMj0OUiLW9BuaNU+pdmS3wTEfOZWeEimgk31vRilid91Qx bDzeQlI6DcKVUo7OI//BODP9g0NBGahY3nqJ45JkWUYmQLueY+Cg5j83Y4vRqGUFCfC8 Crb+K6PHjjWNl4x0O3BPHO8Q/4qPtBluZr8nv4UFataZeAZ1mLGJ1xnujQDeG8Sy2w0N /rRzwteT1JqoJQDhY8Ug41qXMz5ZnDYzkqS4a0x4vPGm+vSoO3lPDFm4RwyeAS1joqij +cmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=mGMV42x8MnMnLfrsDXkY9EOR4N1nSaNYduset9rJRjE=; b=ldRWU2WZg20nZjB5WJboyxptyfkDWHyz6ILVCeIxRkd6/04ALiExdsY733eMK43kqV IL920Ou2oFA7f68i77rV4JgrGEi4hWfa6PhiKQuRBcfPxJ1QVMhuXIPOr/7D9IUOMG3i 0eUg0gvTEXUv/1ZIBbSEGZiW8cULzcdoZlST1EDmDkOrKa3uCUO9g9ps/BrLK3s//etx yQB9D5FgPkx5PDDQs4nnPUQgnYhBEhKZsjBrK5lKrYPqf6YDvU8ZsgR7x3Cp3FIPEkyW IBpXZvgkBa9ZP9I77GtI9b79p6BttoH/bJMgE/7X7grFNMfMtAaXnVg1lfl7SKW5Dm/Y CM2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533h3WpOsWJusx1yE9nkCYA6WnmTi0R3n3M3F+nUV0L2H1NNYSCv RPfle9109m6G7nmkfqimqs1v4UBdY6g2xA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKqaP+zLgSot5jSdPYudMVwAo6gzt9N2cYXHY0pt+0A+GKU7XDaedSA+YQ1j3Z+hjanQNVTQ==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8a49:0:b029:25e:32bf:a839 with SMTP id n9-20020aa78a490000b029025e32bfa839mr18309607pfa.76.1619030143156; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id h18sm121327pgj.51.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: hampering progress
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 11:35:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 18:35:54 -0000

On 4/21/21 10:56 AM, Keith Moore wrote:

> Bottom line: Anyone who wants to promote an idea within IETF has to 
> find some way of building consensus around that idea.   And any time 
> there's inertia opposing that idea, building that consensus isn't 
> likely to be easy, even if it's a very good idea.    It's still the 
> job of the proponents of that idea to try to build consensus; nobody 
> else is going to do it for them.

How can you "build consensus" when you aren't allowed to even talk about 
it? I don't go to meetings. I don't want to go to meetings. Does that 
mean I am excluded from "building consensus"? Are there other ways to 
"build consensus" that I'm not aware of? I'm not even trying to "build 
consensus", per se. I'm just trying to get people to consider whether an 
alternative might be better and if not, why not.

Does that "hamper progress"? Especially after about a half dozen 
messages and less than 24 hours?

But this list doesn't seem to be the answer because it's mostly about 
ietf process and the right technical people are definitionally going to 
be hit and miss.