RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Fri, 13 February 2009 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
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 C9C4228C26F for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:11:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 eRdlc4uEFQ6q for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D437328C263 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id A5A116BE54F; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:11:05 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Message-Id: <20090213161105.A5A116BE54F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:11:05 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
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: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:11:02 -0000

    > From: "HUANG, ZHIHUI (JERRY), ATTLABS" <jhuang1@att.com>

    > We shouldn't assume that FSF will not learn from feedbacks

Well, I don't know. RMS's intial response to my lengthy note (which I CC'd
this list, I tried to make it productive in tone) to the FSF board (although
the FSF is still basically RMS, as far as I can make out) was not indicative
of a change in course; and their appeals page was updated a day later, but
left basically unchanged - it continued to call for sending email to
ietf@ietf.org.


    >> And no doubt, if it continues to be allowed, it will happen again.

Perhaps "seemingly encouraged" (I meant, by the wording of the LC) would have
been a better phrase than "allowed".

    > Isn't that the right price to pay for an open forum? 

You will note that I explicitly did not, in my suggested change to the LC, say
"close the IETF list to non-subscriber posts". However, that's a long way from
hanging out a "Kick Me" sign, which is what the current LC text ('send
comments to ietf@ietf.org') effectively amounts to, for those who don't
carefully read it, and notice that it's directed to 'the IETF community'.


    > If you know the secret handshake

That's rather unfair.

The IETF web site is easily findable, and we impose no barrier of any kind
(cost, qualifications, etc) to anyone joining any of our email lists. The
IETF is hardly a secret society which is picky about new blood - almost
_everyone_ on this list these days is 'new' since the 'old days' (circa 1970s
for a few of us).

	Noel