Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, January 02, 2006 08:51:20 PM -0800 Dave Crocker
<dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't
believe we have ever turned "winning by exhaustion" or "winning
by intimidation" into virtues, even though those techniques are
Actually we have.
It is used with some regularity by various folk in IETF management, in
lieu of honoring the requirements of "plausible" that I provided above.
If that's true (and I'm not expressing any opinion as to whether it is),
that doesn't make it a virtue.
Note the change that Russ is making to the charter.
I think a lot of people might be missing a key point about how our
process works. In fact, it's looked that way to me for a while, and so
since you bring it up, I'll try to clear things up for anyone who might
be confused. Please don't think I'm singling you out...
[...]
In other words, Russ is within his rights to make changes to the charter
he is willing to bring to the IESG -- especially in a case such as this
where the proposed charter has been discussed so publicly that the rest
of the IESG cannot possibly be deceived into thinking the charter Russ
brings them is exactly the one the DKIM proponents proposed.
I agree. As I believe do a number of other dkim "proponents", most
of whom are, I'd say, much less concerned about these (IMO mainly
process-nit) issues with the charter text and who'd like to get on
with the work in a working group with all that that entails - most
especially including establishing wg-consensus on the text of the
chartered deliverables.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf