RE: Enough is Enough.

[Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,

>> I am sure Khaled would argue that it is not "mereley because", but that his desire to do so is based on the community behavior specific to his case.

I'll not argue anymore, It is clear from the beginning that I just accepted the tombstone version, this will make history available for everyone so no one can come up with a similar idea.

Cheers,

Khaled Omar

-----Original Message-----
From: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2020 9:05 PM
To: Ofer Inbar <[e-mail]>
Cc: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Enough is Enough.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:07:58PM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Toerless Eckert 
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Technically, the key reason for not removing the drafts to me is 
> > that only because Khaled was posting the drafts to the IETF did he 
> > get cycles from the IETF community that was expressed through many 
> > public and (from what i
> > read) also private emails. And it could be seen as a disrespect to 
> > those that did spend cycles on reading those drafts and providing 
> > feedback to remove the drafts. Especially given how the public 
> > exchanges about the draft are archived and those archives would not 
> > be comprehensible if the references documents where removed.
> 
> You made it seem like a secondary point, but for me personally, the 
> main reason not to remove drafts is to make it possible for people 
> reading the list archives or looking into history later on, to see 
> what was being discussed at the time and read it directly.

I am not a native english speaker. I did not intend to make it seem secondary.
I would be happy to receive language suggestion to avoid this misperception for future reference.

To me there are no clearly prioritizeable choices here.

> For that reason, I would feel quite uncomfortable if I saw drafts 
> being removed from the archives merely because the submitter wished to 
> stop working with the IETF.

I am sure Khaled would argue that it is not "mereley because", but that his desire to do so is based on the community behavior specific to his case.

> Having the drafts present does not
> prevent the submitter from ceasing to work with the IETF.  Knowing 
> that that's all it takes to get a draft removed, would make me feel 
> about any future draft "this might just disappear later", which 
> changes the way people might relate to all future proposals.

The only rules we seem to have is "unusual circumstances". Hence i would say you "slippery slope" argument invalidates itself: If incidents like this would occur more frequently they would not be unusual anymore.

Still waiting of course for someone to explain better boundary definition of "unusual circumstances".

Cheers
    Toerless

>   -- Cos

--
---
[e-mail]