On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 12:07:58PM -0400, Ofer Inbar wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 05:39:33PM +0200,
> Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Technically, the key reason for not removing the drafts to me is that
> > only because Khaled was posting the drafts to the IETF did he get cycles from
> > the IETF community that was expressed through many public and (from what i
> > read) also private emails. And it could be seen as a disrespect to those
> > that did spend cycles on reading those drafts and providing feedback to
> > remove the drafts. Especially given how the public exchanges about the
> > draft are archived and those archives would not be comprehensible if the
> > references documents where removed.
>
> You made it seem like a secondary point, but for me personally, the
> main reason not to remove drafts is to make it possible for people
> reading the list archives or looking into history later on, to see
> what was being discussed at the time and read it directly.
I am not a native english speaker. I did not intend to make it seem secondary.
I would be happy to receive language suggestion to avoid this misperception
for future reference.
To me there are no clearly prioritizeable choices here.
> For that reason, I would feel quite uncomfortable if I saw drafts
> being removed from the archives merely because the submitter wished to
> stop working with the IETF.
I am sure Khaled would argue that it is not "mereley because", but that
his desire to do so is based on the community behavior specific to his case.
> Having the drafts present does not
> prevent the submitter from ceasing to work with the IETF. Knowing
> that that's all it takes to get a draft removed, would make me feel
> about any future draft "this might just disappear later", which
> changes the way people might relate to all future proposals.
The only rules we seem to have is "unusual circumstances". Hence i would
say you "slippery slope" argument invalidates itself: If incidents like
this would occur more frequently they would not be unusual anymore.
Still waiting of course for someone to explain better boundary definition
of "unusual circumstances".
Cheers
Toerless
> -- Cos
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
