> From: Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx> > In the message Randy concludes that > > "If anyone wishes to raise an issue, (s)he should do on on the working group > mailing list by posting a message detailing the concern and, if possible, > supplying proposed replacement text." > > But it would seem that Morfin did just exactly that, with a lot of supporting > documentation. It seems to me that Randy Presuhn just doesn't want to address > the concerns raised, nor does he want anyone _else_ to address the concerns. Not the case at all. Everyone else in the WG that was voicing pertinent concerns was doing so (i) in a reasonably clear manner that all could understand (ii) on the list and (iii) whenever appropriate supplying specific suggested revisions to the text. There were occasions on which Mr. Morfin made clear and pertinent comments on the list, and when he did they were welcomed. On some occasions, he suggested specific text, and when he did those suggestions were considered openly. On several occasions, however, he posted messages that tended toward being opaque or overly long or both, and far more often than not he didn't give concrete suggestions for specific textual changes. Within some of those often-lengthy posts he pointed to documents he had placed on other sites, and there were many things that led others in the WG to believe that the material on those other sites was supporting his entirely different agenda rather than the work of the WG. Perhaps some of that content was useful to the work of the WG, but by that point there was already a high level of frustration among many WG members, such that there really was an onus on him to demonstrate that it would be worthwhile to spend the time going off to review them. This he did not do. > In > fact, Randy actually admits in the same message to having advised others _not_ > to review Morfin's objections. That seems to be contrary to Last Call. I'm not aware of any occasion on which Randy advised members of the WG not to review Last Call comments that had be submitted in the expected manner on the WG or IETF lists. > The sample, limited as it is, seems to confirm an unjustifiable personal attack > on Morfin based, it seems, on personal dislike and intolerance for his English > language skills IMO your limited sample is not sufficient to support your point. If it were representative, then one would expect that several others monitoring the WG discussions would be providing that confirmation. I have not seen any indication of that happening. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf