Re: [media-types] [art] [dispatch] Status of Haptics I-D in DISPATCH?

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

It would a severe understatment to say I'm flabbergasted by this.

> In your final response, you cut an important piece of what I had said, so I
> restore it here:

> Right now nothing seems to be
> >> preventing this work from going forward other than your insistence on it
> >> being
> >> done your way.
> >>
> >
> > This is neither helpful nor accurate. I am not an author of this work; I
> > responded to an AD request for review and commentary, and I have provided
> > both, citing each time that it was my personal opinion.  I stand by those
> > opinions, of course, but this matter is up to the community.
> >
> > best,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
> >

> It is severely discourteous to chop off a statement in which I highlighted
> that I was giving a personal opinion and would go with the community
> decision.

Unless you have a special status relevant to this effort that I'm unaware of,
everything you say here is a personal opinion. (And so is everything I say,
because I have no special status here either: The fact that some of my comments
are based on my experience as a media type reviewer may give them a bit of
additional weight, but doesn't give them any special status.)

Anyone who fails to evaluate your or my comments just as critically as one
coming from a first time poster isn't doing it right.

As for "going along with the community decision", since I don't know what it
means to not go along with it - more on that below - I assign zero weight to the
statement.

I therefore reject, absolutely and completely, your assertion that it was
severely discourteous to remove this text.

More generally, as far as trimming material goes, my eyesight happens to be
complete crap, and as a result I find it very difficult to pick out the relevant
material from a sea of nested replies. (And for some reason I find trailing text
to be especially distacting - I'm not sure why.)

As a result I tend to be very aggressive in cutting material out of messages -
and that's the reason I removed what I believe to have been irrelevant text.

That said, in some circumstances this may result in context that would have
aided someone else being lost - although I don't see that as being the case
here. But I'm afraid I have little choice but to assign higher priority to my
own ability to participate effectively than to the possibility of
inconveniencing someone else.

> I understand that you don't agree with my opinion (and, unsurprisingly, I
> also don't agree with yours), but I am willing to go forward in any way
> that the community agrees will make progress, even if it is not the way I
> would personally consider optimal.   I am not getting an impression of the
> same willingness from you, so it might be best if you stated outright
> whether you are willing to go with the community consensus on this.  We can
> then leave it up to the ADs to judge that consensus.

I'm completely at a loss as to what your concern is here.

What, exactly, would it mean for me - or anyone else - to not be "willing to go
along with the consensus"? Throw a fit? Pray for divine intevention? File an
entirely groundless appeal in hopes of gumming up the works? Go into a funk,
pout, pick up my marbles, and refuse to participate?

And even if I did choose to behave in such a grossly unprofessional manner, so
what? I'm conceited enough to think my personal opinions have sufficient value
to be worth posting, but nowhere near conceited enough to believe that they are
so special and precious that they are even close to being essential to this
effort's success.

And perhaps more to the point, I've been actively involved in the IETF since
1989, and during that time I've been on the losing side of far more
consequential decisions than this more times than I can even count. This
includes quite a few cases where, unlike here, I actually had significant skin
in the game.  Exactly when did my past behavior give you cause to think I would
even consider doing something along these lines?

In any case, since you seem to require assurance on this point, the answer is I
have no problem if the ADs decide to charter two working groups. I would have a
problem with five... but that seems unlikely.

> Hopefully they have more input than you, me, and John, despite the volume
> of the recent exchanges among us; after all, none of us is likely to do the
> bulk of the work in the eventual group.

Well, maybe you don't plan on doing significant work in the group or groups, but
I most certainly do: I have every intention of providing feedback on all of the
drafts associated with my media types to-do list, and as I previously stated, I
have every intention of authoring or coauthoring at least one and possibly more
of the drafts themselves.

And to once more assuage your concerns: It won't matter to me in the slightest
if this work happens in one or two groups.

				Ned