Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Robert Sayre writes:

> I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get
> work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most
> of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with
> designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are
> implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants
> are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs,
> and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see.

Which implementers are those?

Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on discussion groups;
they are too busy implementing.  Analyze, specific, code, test,
release.  No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that
process.  And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend
them doing things or spend them talking about doing things, but it's
hard to manage both.

> It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the
> past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in
> response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF
> is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here.

If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were
dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be
accomplished?


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]