Re: [Ntp] Quick review of WGLC for status change for draft-ietf-ntp-update-registries

[Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>]

Karen,

On 8/10/2022 3:10 PM, Karen ODonoghue wrote:
> Harlan,
> 
> Your statement quoted below is completely false. I have always and 
> continue to welcome comments and contributions from you. I think the 
> working group and the NTP community would benefit from your constructive 
> engagement. We had this same conversation in a private conversation in 
> 2020, and I responded in a private email to you to correct your 
> misconceptions. I have quoted part of that email to you below.

You and I remember the conversation you had with me when you told me all 
my proposals had been dropped differently.

I also said this to you in our conversation in 2020.

I will take you at your word that y'all are interested in constructive 
engagement from me.

H
--
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 9:46 PM Harlan Stenn <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 8/8/2022 5:39 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>      > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 03:35:40AM -0700, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> 
>     Karen told me the WG consensus was to drop all my proposals, and
>     further
>     informed me that future submissions from me would not be considered.
> 
>     I have no plans to pursue my proposals via the Standards track of the
>     WG, or perhaps thru the WG at all.
> 
> 
> ********* below is quoted directly from a private email exchange with 
> Harlan on 26 August 2020 **********
> 
> Having said that, you are clearly misrepresenting what I said on that 
> phone call. This is the same thing that I have said to you many many 
> times over the course of several years as I tried to help you progress 
> documents in the IETF.
> 
> Specifically what I said was that there was no working group consensus 
> to adopt your extension field draft. In fact, the working group was all 
> opposed except for you. 
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-09 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenn-ntp-extension-fields-09>)
> Several of us including myself and Sam Weiler tried to work with you to 
> help you gather support for this document, but we were not successful. 
> In this (unadopted) document you wanted to make changes to RFC 7822 
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7822 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7822>) because you didn't agree with the 
> clarifications made by that RFC (changes which you agreed to at the time 
> of publication). My point to you was that the document was dead in the 
> working group unless you got other members of the working group to 
> support it. I also said that any of your extension field drafts that 
> relied on your extension field update would not be able to progress. Any 
> extension field draft that accepted the RFC 8722 extension field 
> clarification could progress provided there was working group support.
> 
> So, in summary, I NEVER told you that I "would not advance *any* future 
> Standards track proposals" or  "*any* future Informational track 
> proposals" from you. This is absolutely FALSE.
> 
> What I told is that you need to work collaboratively with the working 
> group and get working group consensus to progress working group 
> documents. As working group co-chair, all I am doing is trying to 
> determine consensus. You are very much welcome to contribute, and I am 
> happy to help shepherd documents authored by you. However, I don't make 
> decisions. I measure the consensus of the working group.

-- 
Harlan Stenn <[e-mail]>
http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member!