Re: problem with recent drafts on tools.ietf.org? {35440727}

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Apologies for sending this to the folks listed; I thought I was replying privately to Henrik. There are days I want to kill my mail tool…

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Mar 10, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for clearing this up. I obviously forr, and repeated, some bad data.
> 
> I don’t blame you for discounting IETF lists. I’m back on it now, but dropped ietf@ after the Buenos Aires meeting. The meetings committee got a load of crap on that list for quite some time, and I had had enough.
> 
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
> 
>>> On Mar 10, 2021, at 3:37 AM, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> I believe it is the IETF Administration LLC Board of Directors. 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021, 6:17 AM Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> This is most disturbing.
>>> 
>>> Who is Jay’s boss?
>>> 
>>> Stewart
>>> 
>>> > On 10 Mar 2021, at 11:02, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > Hi Fred,
>>> > 
>>> > Someone alerted me to this.  I don't read any IETF lists any more, so
>>> > needed the nudge:
>>> > 
>>> > On 2021-03-04 20:15, Fred Baker wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >>> On Mar 3, 2021, at 3:54 PM, Lou Berger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> Well this is a troubling response -- does anyone know if there's
>>> >>> plans for tools.ietf.org? I would have thought that some thought
>>> >>> would be given to this and maybe some announcement made to the
>>> >>> IETF. Did I miss it??? Are we just destined to the whims of bit
>>> >>> rot?
>>> >> 
>>> >> I think there was an announcement that Henrik was leaving, and I
>>> >> certainly knew that there was a conflict between him and DMS/Glen's
>>> >> work.
>>> > 
>>> > There has been no conflict between me and AMS/Glen, none at all.  There
>>> > has been a great deal of conflict with the way the LLC Board and Jay
>>> > has been running things and what they have put me through, and I'm deeply
>>> > unhappy with them, but not at all with AMS or Glen.
>>> > 
>>> > The latest incident was with Jay at the beginning of February, after
>>> > the end of my contract but at a time when I was still committed to
>>> > maintaining tools.ietf.org as I have been doing it.  That February
>>> > encounter did however completely zap my motivation for keeping
>>> > tools.ietf.org up, and I now just want to be able to get completely
>>> > away from it.
>>> > 
>>> > It used to give me great pleasure, thanks to the appreciation of all
>>> > the good people in the IETF community, but now after the latest Jay
>>> > incident it only reminds me of the pain of last year.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > Best regards,
>>> > 
>>> >       Henrik
>>> > 
>>> >> What might be nice wold be if people could somehow advise the
>>> >> LLC that they use some specific tool, and would like to see it ported
>>> >> into the AMS toolset. I would include the ability to subscribe to a
>>> >> meeting calendar attached to or derived from derived from the IETF
>>> >> Agenda. I use the "tools style" calendar and subscribe to it - in
>>> >> large part because I keep all of my calendars in one tool and have
>>> >> calendars that are unrelated to the IETF, so the ability to subscribe
>>> >> to a calendar that lists a subset of the meetings at a given IETF
>>> >> meeting is very useful to me.
>>> >> 
>>> >> For clarity, I am attaching what my calendar looks like fr the week
>>> >> of IETF 110, and includes IETF meetings, ICANN's prep week for ICANN
>>> >> 070, and some work in the ITU, in addition to personal events. If I
>>> >> have a complaint in that, it is that ICANN and ITU don't seem to see
>>> >> the value of subscribing to a calendar, but rather send out events -
>>> >> when then become outdated as time goes on. I would not want IETF to
>>> >> become deficient in that respect. 
>>> > 
>>>