Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 06 December 2019 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C769E1209FA; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47cyMAlFqHfR; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71BE51209D8; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 14:02:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:c587:95a9:42c3:73e9] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:47d8:c587:95a9:42c3:73e9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15B104E11A62; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 22:02:15 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 23:02:13 +0100
Message-Id: <D666EA6E-E8E9-439A-9CDE-20857F03CB65@employees.org>
References: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com>
Cc: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG <spring@ietf.org>, 6man <6man@ietf.org>, "int-ads@ietf.org" <int-ads@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, rtg-ads <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <f2a0ad13-0eba-6f5a-1d3c-e45e2780f201@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17C5046a)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/MzemhX-_vUcnH0ef5owFQNuWK_E>
Subject: Re: [spring] We don't seem to be following our processes (Re: Network Programming - Penultimate Segment Popping)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2019 22:02:20 -0000


> On 6 Dec 2019, at 22:09, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think there is much room for interpretation here, but anyway I
> should ask: are you suggesting that I have attacked or been attacking
> the process?

I would rather say taking advantage of the process.

By reiterating the same assertive arguments again and again you contribute to polarization. Your strategy for consensus building seems to be one of attrition. 

If you want to help make the process work, I would encourage you to reconsider that approach.

Ole