Re: Resignation request

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 02 March 2020 21:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
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 1444D3A11DF; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:31:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
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 lBYuh0CGbupk; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [83.247.10.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3022C3A11FD; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7FB149; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 22:30:24 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= x-mailer:references:in-reply-to:date:date:subject:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-type:message-id:from:from :received:received; s=mail; t=1583184622; bh=XUjLDLo4ivAV9Z6CaO5 dEVusCShp9myYTfg4pI+gJs8=; b=sBDMVZJSziRPklnAQMpoY1kVUJLhxfURnmm oeKt7bZgytEZNg+H3S1I3iTgwdzQ9byPYVGpyuQEFVt6xr+GYLxV4wyxN1OuwMT0 0Rn2XQ8jnKwbabX8EZX7GfPkiFXvN0MIVHPNYm9Mh+aRZvDbJ4n4GIMeficKr/hm GVbazVkU=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id jVZqYRha267M; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 22:30:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:2022:41af:c4f2:3aef] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:2022:41af:c4f2:3aef]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18A323C; Mon, 2 Mar 2020 22:30:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
Message-Id: <B35D7607-EB1E-4D1F-BB3E-0CE2C9116DDF@steffann.nl>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_11721357-DDB6-4D9C-BB32-BDE5D643C322"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3594.4.19\))
Subject: Re: Resignation request
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 22:30:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDo9=k2YxXWj+m1w989Ki6Sg5JOcunSVdrtoKkbppL0Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <E85AEEC7-AAE7-4AE8-966E-FDF7AFD2B47C@steffann.nl> <CA+9kkMDo9=k2YxXWj+m1w989Ki6Sg5JOcunSVdrtoKkbppL0Uw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3594.4.19)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lcoLizCMCKkOLaP0IIX-SFtbyxk>
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:31:06 -0000

Hi Ted,

> Without any comment on this particular instance, it is generally a good idea to go through an appeal of a specific decision first. My experience is that people do reconsider their actions in the light of appeals fairly frequently, and it is generally better to explore the option of reconsideration before anything else.  If there are still concerns after that, you can always test the waters for further actions (such as a recall, which is set out in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7437#section-7 and  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8713#section-7).

I hope that email that was all that is necessary. I dislike official procedures against people when not necessary. People make mistakes, and should (must) be given the opportunity to solve them. In this case I feel that part of that solution is a voluntary resignation, but I'm open to alternatives.

> Having made many of my own mistakes over the course of my time in the IETF, I know I have appreciated the opportunity to get something right (or explain more fully my reasoning.)  I understand that there are other efforts at drafting a summary of issues in the general space, but a short, focused appeal of the nature "I ask for a reconsideration of a declaration of consensus, given the amount of time the most recent draft was available before its declaration" might prove useful.

If that was the only thing I object to… Unfortunately I cannot believe an AD can be oblivious of the controversy, and I have seen several attempts to solve the open issues. I am just baffled that consensus can be declared while these attempts are still ongoing.

Let's see what happens now before deciding what to do next.

Thank you for your advice.

Cheers,
Sander