IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Terminology discussion threads

Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org> Thu, 13 August 2020 15:53 UTC

Return-Path: <cos@mip.polyamory.org>
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 D3F8C3A0DFC; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 y83-LGFHCMoW; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mip.polyamory.org (mip.aaaaa.org [199.201.145.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75613A0E06; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mip.polyamory.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 7C6E910760; Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:53:00 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:53:00 -0400
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@aaaaa.org>
To: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>
Cc: saa@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Terminology discussion threads
Message-ID: <20200813155300.GY3866@mip.aaaaa.org>
References: <9ABDC2BC-E6A3-4249-99C5-F0BB3683A03D@ietf.org> <223A1539-30B0-424A-89D1-A968FFD4C140@symbolic.software> <aceec35c-ccc8-ccca-7a5b-7d23746f67e2@ietf.org> <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <A9BB633C-3278-406C-BD38-748646D7E454@symbolic.software>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Organization: American Association Against Acronym Abuse
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/u_0yYmaUa_HgY08Mf3jegJ81Vx4>
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: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:53:04 -0000

Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software> wrote:
>
> I see that the emails from others above expressing *approval* for the IESG are not receiving correctional visits from the SAA, so I wanted to make sure that I expressed myself in The Correct Manner moving forward:
> 

I've seen emails on this thread of two sorts so far:

Quite a few emails have
1 - Expressed approval of the decision, and
2 - Not addressed any of the substantive issues from the previous discussion.

A small number of emails have
1 - Not expressed approval of the decision, and
2 - Also discussed the substance of the issues from the previous discussion.

I propose the likely possibility that variable #2, not variable #1, is
the reason the emails of the latter sort have been addressed by the SAA,
while emails of the former sort have not been.  It's just that the
correlation of the two variables has been perfect so far, I think.
  -- Cos

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email