IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IAOC Request for community feedback

Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Tue, 23 October 2012 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dougb@dougbarton.us>
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 830291F0C91 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CWpHwE+wjX46 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD05B1F042A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10580 invoked by uid 399); 23 Oct 2012 19:26:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@12.207.105.210) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 23 Oct 2012 19:26:47 -0000
X-Originating-IP: 12.207.105.210
X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us
Message-ID: <5086EF82.9060900@dougbarton.us>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:26:58 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: IAOC Request for community feedback
References: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20121023192135.203AC18C0A4@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:27:02 -0000

On 10/23/2012 12:21 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
> 
>     > It is neither safe, nor appropriate, to assume that the subset of
>     > people humming about this issue overlaps sufficiently with the subset
>     > that hummed about establishing the procedure to justify this decision.
> 
> What, we can't change a procedure unless the set of people who previously
> OK'd it now agree to change it? I don't think so. A hum is a hum is a hum.

You're not proposing a change in procedure. You're proposing to ignore
one. Those are entirely different things.

You've also snipped out the entire portion of my message where I talked
about actually changing the procedure, and why that may actually be a
good thing. I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to confuse the
issue by arguing against a straw-man that I did not actually propose, or
if you just didn't understand what I wrote previously. If the latter I
apologize, and would be happy to clarify if necessary.

Doug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email