IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sun, 02 October 2022 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC85C14F721 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0tIM90wPFGI3 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f180.google.com (mail-oi1-f180.google.com [209.85.167.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CA7CC14EB1C for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-f180.google.com with SMTP id j188so10011353oih.0 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=D+fs3yv9UNz1UmN8RSPimJKISwBkhyqcVvaDuks5yRM=; b=BIgB9kLOM156Fm0faURHK0rVHS4MOVd9nVfzTuyF16i2QOvm3pHIm+VLM824wpA6UD MPpSMIh7CY0E7OZ9BKVh51OlG+USSR1uhSRJPSrHLugfDbSN294GCTjR7db7o86dgRbF IVfMRTfZZpfYUp2zP1trWbX12TgxN9BNBKNICLw6Wce85wkmiB3oCouVIfV/2q43AONF 4JU7lnuNH5eC+HDgYnAulgSA3VvlVJm2S3N8lo3SzZ4OT3X82tSYAJA01MLqBKZ2VF7c mcuDmRNXvFG35gLVkX3sgwx7ifTVl1oPE6QnMUgMEv82an8Qm1tqCeV+/AmQR4gK0fTD RSzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf25pt20mGT7E6wLcMfTutrPp4LTiy3tCAlGsAOLY9lA2w7aAtkl rEnjWbN3m++hAOa6vQOU8cu1Ltz3pjAC6ZZ69pE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6ildz3usAkXUvLybv1BhxsqLbTZLtuNDF9iIRZut4Z515rGh34/qwM439mXrnyMmv4oziCNAr45wZvrdQG9aE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1a87:b0:34f:67aa:5089 with SMTP id bm7-20020a0568081a8700b0034f67aa5089mr3085591oib.108.1664754946763; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CFE25E25-D131-468E-9923-80350D6216F3@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwg4ZVW617hPBaLxHF8jJpm9pq2s66hO2LFr+-f1JAe9MA@mail.gmail.com> <abf3716a-0c87-ba7b-1e3c-f7d89f2da988@network-heretics.com> <CAPt1N1kNpfTG0AKzVN+LTt9wcwPHmbDqSSENuroMu_6EfvQ2wQ@mail.gmail.com> <d645ffda-4511-c555-8fc3-cb771243b360@network-heretics.com> <96ebb83d-6800-1760-2772-1af912b34413@nostrum.com> <CAChr6SySua4T=B5kEGkgQiGKXrTYezfoFH6pmPJWcX9=yKHfgg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SySua4T=B5kEGkgQiGKXrTYezfoFH6pmPJWcX9=yKHfgg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 19:55:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwh2J_+xq=cipLc88U1g1vuDMX5DkUVbh0wq9Yn3dFvDwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003d713405ea15f77f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/WrQ4WSQLiJsjm6KKLZu5FqdE2hA>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 23:55:48 -0000

Could I just register a pet peeve of mine which is retrospective
redefinition of what the consensus means?

Case in point, WG decides that X is out of scope. Then when it reports out,
shrieks of anger as people who want to do X don't agree to use their work
product.

I would also like to see a rule that any WG chair who starts off with a
statement of the form 'we have to do this in 12 months so we have to do it
this way' is automatically booted from the WG 12 months later. Every single
time I have seen that used it has been playing dirty pool and none of the
WGs has delivered anything of note in four years.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 7:07 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 3:49 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> To be clear, they're not unrelated concepts; they're just not the same
>> thing: unpopular opinions can become disruptive behavior when consensus
>> is declared, those opinions are properly determined to be "in the
>> rough," and their proponents insist on re-litigating those issues
>> anyway.
>
>
> Correct. I just experienced a fairly contentious discussion along those
> lines.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/D32Y4ASUD6HQhLF4mzmTQVstnMU/
>
> I got most of what I had been arguing for, but also declared myself "in
> the rough" in the end.
>
>
>
>> That kind of behavior blocks progress. (Did the person who
>> called consensus get it wrong? That's always possible, and that's why we
>> have an appeals process. I want to be clear that appeals are not the
>> same thing as repeatedly attempting to re-litigate closed issues in the
>> same forum.)
>>
>
> This part doesn't matter. If the idea is really bad, it will just fail.
> Sit back and watch.
>
>
>
>> But in many ways, none of that is really applicable here.
>
> ...
>
>> . It's about whether we tolerate that kind of unfettered
>> jackassery on our mailing lists, regardless of the opinions they express.
>>
>
> Yep. The objection is not really about expression, but about time wasted.
> It's about entitlement, and the insistence that people listen to you.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
> --
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email