Re: ietf@ietf.org is a failure

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Sat, 08 June 2013 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@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 495F521F9643 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 djikZ+70sYDF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18E621F9640 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id xb12so5810748pbc.40 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xA7MhcRgKTUh9xBHtnaFgNs1AwVAcOpkvwES33S1c80=; b=Ka24uuidS8pux8+kSFMovySCFiFB5OBv0enJ8J3FO7cJA86N92HJ9Wqm2tuf9xmJaz XsxW7d7lhIqDuWK64jx06gHAa7WxMLAZaUc3SmfEm3l24Xe43qaeJPUejOgNXe+0vVk5 dUdDCAvPO09rgIppWAljdX7AUjPvfVvzHzOKDAB35BMoPxiS0Ifr6ittSeyW8m7D2ehB QHxG3qYtblxkx8gyI8z8C3KISDyNbsRR3RlI4LsuTAsE2QHBbaaSsJ0FfQ9V9K5F5atI IE6IFRB2mF/EzfXhiISTrkNdQ+kunJfDsdLC/8QJPb7jH0a+XnGSRGfaPDBpbYMj+/wr j2TQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.232.9 with SMTP id tk9mr8034167pac.20.1370721355468; Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:55:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spandex.local (66-230-82-15-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.82.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xn5sm8025488pab.0.2013.06.08.12.55.53 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51B38C47.5020602@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:55:51 -0800
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20130608092332.0cb80b58@resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:55:56 -0000

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.

Melinda