Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/31/2017 8:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 07:46:16AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Which of the previous times your concerns were raised developed
>> that support?  Please point me to the mailing list content that
>> produced that agreement, and in particular please indicate what
>> changes were agreed to.
>
> As I think my note already said, you win.  I'll stop discussing it

Andrew, this has nothing to do with me, no matter how much you try to
claim otherwise.

You have attempted to re-litigate this issue at least 3 times in the
working group.  You are insistent on the correctness of your views, and
gosh that's so unusual for someone participating in the IETF.  Goodness
knows I've never felt that level of certitude about any of the views
I've promoted.  But the only question that ever matters is whether
community/wg support developed enough to direct changes.

Hence my question.


>> Interesting.  I raise a very specific process concern -- including
>> reference to the prior dates -- and you return with a generic (and
>> undocumented) ad hominem.  Nice.
>
> My apologies, you're right, it is wrong to point to things off-list.
>  I hereby withdraw that remark.

Except that you aren't withdrawing it and you aren't really even
apologizing.  You are re-asserting the correctness of this false claim,
while asserting a false excuse for declining to substantiate it.

These is a long list of messages that I posted to you and/or Alissa on
the list, during the previous rounds of discussion about your concerns,
last Summer and last Fall, attempting to get followup on your concerns,
by raising counter-concerns and/or seeking details.

And these don't count the private messages I sent you and Alissa,
attempting to get you to engage with details and pragmatics.


> But in any case, you have not responded to my concerns about the
> various definitional issues, which I think are rather more important
>  since this document is supposed to guide the IAOC.  I can't
> understand how it will do that if the definitions in the document
> are not actually what people are supposed to use.

How very selective of you to mention this.

And wrong:

On 1/30/2017 8:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 8:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>> But that is the whole point. Most of the 'mandatory' items are
>>> in fact judgment calls. So it's mandatory to make the call, but
>>> it's made by the IAOC (on the recommendation of the meetings
>>> committee, presumably). And yes, most of the criteria we've
>>> identified are in that category. That's a good sign, IMHO,
>>> because it means that we aren't wasting time on minor issues.
>>
>> This is a completely absurd meaning of "mandatory" (and not the
>> one in the document).  It's not that it's mandatory to make the
>> call, but rather that if the criterion cannot be satisfied then
>> the meeting is not to be held there.  It's perfectly clear in the
>> text:
>>
>> Mandatory: If this requirement cannot be met, a location under
>> consideration is unacceptable.  We walk away.
>
> Requiring due diligence about specific issues is quite common when
> writing requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is...
> absurd. As for possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the
> document: In some cases getting the necessary information is
> problematic.  So we don't go there.  Again, not absurd.


It's one thing to respond to this with some thoughtful basis for
disagreement.  Instead your above comments implies that you didn't even
see it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net