IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 05:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 7FE1B1296D6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 4f6mxc-kAjgN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x232.google.com (mail-qk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D51B12947B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 11so112910898qkl.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=QYh9h4ou55ikNdNor67Zr2BYcRpdF04pzWXmIOnE/Qo=; b=NSTeGb34Ge0k34mTYfD2rFh1mJPzk1B4Usd0FQLmhuzURhefDYIPf9PHWrdvx9mver N9sgjl3F0ZYdci0wMunAyuFYzEzsudhYyyhvHps8AhXS5FvGL1wCdTcuG3sUG2VjeOsL qOU4VKFUcd9NzI1O5m4PA6we5rWrVtzcpUW3Yi+ffKhpsQ1nR+weJkLHF3lFw5c2n44U Dg4DJnZAuUIaCZirOrG8VyXqumW/SqpB2g04Zt8Uw5hDrxC8sK49WhHXtpSxjkWM/RyK 1AFXrP1gUSM8TH4A0a7tC9WK4cs0NFvJ3C3B4D5z7m3KsSoo9/IIshYXkO5G2I3dNkdv Gheg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=QYh9h4ou55ikNdNor67Zr2BYcRpdF04pzWXmIOnE/Qo=; b=OEoArSdamRK4cPYLP2ZEZ9fhClAvShwLkZeW6xy39/6OIs6cu/1xrvuPHfebqC8UvW 49ks0ldaqFOSSMmcHkALi2H56VMHdZfcMG90c3f5ppu2XNwAArBv+OpBGiw0qi1VFzzG OSSdC0ryhHd36oV0/6+11TVnPKZgpvGebAzMr2WpX9GtMDifuBtXe1NRcsdKwRhTmJy5 8yjK3T4W/ItK7VmT8VbGVkbeBpTgK/rxYjVMzOFceM3Pnk//3SHpph14u8Bt2eoiObHU uuBfnhzAjedjX7SfQMwZ2ktVI3FKmQ8OcMjMCvPC4EkQD7hj0y49/kx8tjuI89sLUyJe rbZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39n/4aPlSsnmksNdAEq9llPs9E9P7Cp9RJRihmdbnUc/r04lV6C2hODByzlBwfcdbQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.123.129 with SMTP id w123mr24887157qkc.20.1487049555486; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 13sm7193363qtn.57.2017.02.13.21.19.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Feb 2017 21:19:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <10867D09-9904-4F0D-BCC3-62195C037706@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_807240BD-E34A-4514-9E0B-692D0A70A471"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 00:19:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/xuT31maTEMlAcM9-xuBze4Q0OKQ>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 05:19:18 -0000

On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I think it's only fair that the person bringing up the issue clearly states what's going on. For instance, in the second case the person should really have said, "This was judged out-of-scope by the WG/chair, but I think it ought not be out-of-scope because of X, Y, and Z". Simply saying, "Please make this change to the document" as if it were never discussed before is not helpful to the rest of the list during Last Call.

Since I was one of the people who made that point, I should say that "the chair made a mistake" is a different statement than "the working group decided, and I was part of that conversation, and I don't agree, so let's discuss it again."

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email