IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Terminology discussion threads

S Moonesamy <sm@+ietfelandsys.com> Wed, 19 August 2020 00:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 770A53A105A; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.996
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN=0.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 z4p0Cl0uG4i0; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719DB3A1056; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.164.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 07J0QQuD029290 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:26:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200818143803.0c0c7730@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 17:26:03 -0700
To: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm@+ietfelandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
In-Reply-To: <8D192E05-DDDE-4B4B-86F8-AB207094E05D@ietf.org>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20200818064925.0d478548@elandsys.com> <8D192E05-DDDE-4B4B-86F8-AB207094E05D@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hDZUHotuuYqEFRTfriIBHlp4CiU>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 13:03:17 -0700
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:26:47 -0000

Dear Mr Daley,
At 01:33 PM 18-08-2020, Jay Daley wrote:
>I think you are well aware that this was a mistake that was swiftly corrected
>
><https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xMoaLSjq30gxPK4cbqfjAMyJzlM/>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xMoaLSjq30gxPK4cbqfjAMyJzlM/
>
>I think you are are also well aware that we offered unlimited fee 
>waivers for IETF 108.

I was surprised by the support on that thread.  I did not take up the 
offer.  I did not use any backdoor even if it was technically 
possible to do so.

>While both of those had significant missteps on the way, the end 
>result was a meeting that anyone could participate in and therefore 
>your description of the situation is far from accurate.

The point was that subscribers can send emails to ietf@ to express 
their opinion on issues which may not be apparent.  It would be 
interesting to compare the list of people who commented about the 
so-called "waiver" with the list of people who believe in "inclusiveness".

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email