Re: [rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 02.03.2020 21:20, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Given the number of lists copied here, I'd like to make just one
> observation, in reply to Julian's assertion, so that people who haven't
> been following the discussions on the xml2rfc-dev list in the last half
> of 2018 have a bit more data to work with:
>
> On 2020-03-02 19:19, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, the fact that *you* do not know the answer is kind of scary.
>>>
>>
>> I expect that one of the things to come out of the upcoming discussions for
>> the future of the RSE roll will be where decisions are formally held and
>> what the right level of independence is with respect to the RSE role.
>>
>>> It's now something like 9 months since I tried to draw attention to the
>>> current mess, and there seems absolutely no measurable progress on this
>>> issue since
>
> At this point, people should be aware that the reason we haven't made progress
> in determining a revised specification is that when I started to feed back
> issues to the discussion list, Julian was sufficiently obstructionist in
> his responses to many proposed adjustments that there was absolutely no hope
> of both having that extended conversation and at the same time producing a
> tool release that would let the RPC carry out their planned transition.
>
> I deplore the situation we have, but the primary reason we are in this
> situation is that sensible discussion and progress in resolving proposed
> changes was killed by an Not-Invented-Here attitude from the v3 design team
> members active on the discussion list in the autumn of 2018, with Julian
> the most active in preventing any progress at all from taking place on some
> issues.

If that was true, how do you explain that I supported roughly half of
the proposed changes? And even for the changes I believe to be bad, I
implemented (and test-cased) most in my implementation so to be able to
provide useful feedback (see
<https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/report/1?asc=0&sort=ticket>
and <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues>).

...having a different opinion is not necessarily "obstructionist".

Best regards, Julian


_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest