IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)

"Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Fri, 22 May 2020 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBD03A0DB1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.621
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.276, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 zwyInaXL1I-C for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEBE03A0DB9 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 04MEo35v022467; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net)
Received: (from ietf@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 04MEo3Tx022466; Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ietf)
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
Message-Id: <202005221450.04MEo3Tx022466@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
In-Reply-To: <30C37177-5C1F-440C-969A-A7AA33E1744D@eggert.org>
To: Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 07:50:03 -0700
CC: "Rodney W. Grimes" <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/-5_b-KvBLHs2fYQpsRHX_AXDpi8>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] dispute (Re: Results of consensus call on ECT(1) usage)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 14:50:55 -0000

> Hi,
> 
> On 2020-5-22, at 16:35, Rodney W. Grimes <ietf@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> >> We were never given a ?none of the above? choice.
> > 
> > Which was actually itemized by the IETF Chair Alisha Cooper at the
> > very end of the Interim Meeting, I was rather shocked to not see
> > it as an option, and hench my vote was made with a comment that
> > I had been "boxed into a choice."
> 
> you can always refrain from responding to the poll?

I can not even believe I am reading that statement.

So in effect squelching any voice I would have in the decision process?  

Had it been a simple poll with little effect on the future I might
of taken that route, but this is a major concensus call with high
contention.

> Lars
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email