No - I think you've pretty much nailed it.
The only thing I would add is something like "rough consensus means that even if literally everyone in the IETF says that you've read the document wrong, they could all be wrong and you right if you've pre-decided your outcome and want the expert reviewers to agree with you rather than point out your incorrect reading". That's a bit long for a comedy statement though.
Cheers,
Bron
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, at 02:03, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
Feel free to add anything I'm missing.***Tell me why you think that, so we can 'improve' the document. = We will change the document in a way that you probably won't like.Works in the Research department = Works to research anything that might be competitive or advantageousWe want to make sure we get security right = Be sure you only have one page on your website because some of us are going to try to find a way in and figure out what you're up too.Appeal agenda says 'record results of e-vote' = We don't actually vote. There is no voting. We might tally up objections but we definitely don't vote.We reject kings, Presidents, etc. = We definitely have a hierarchy, in process and on paper.Is not an expert or might be unaware = Knows exactly what what you are talking about.We're inclusive = We have hundreds of ways for you to ask for permission.We're inclusive = We support policy changes from other organizations.We're inclusive = We will 'encoulture' you into the IETF if you're doing cool stuff without us (looking at you Nottingham, haha)We're inclusive = Until we boot you off the mailing list, just kidding, we put you back on the list.
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
