>>>>> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> It's not hard to see why the newtrk chair (me) decided that
Scott> newtrk had no real future unless we happend to come up with
Scott> something that the IESG liked (without the IESG members
Scott> providing much help figuring out what they might like)
Scott, John, we can choose to be bitter and to look back at past
failures or we can choose to be constructive and look forward.
If you believe Brian made the wrong consensus call, then say so and
get others to say so.
Otherwise, please get over newtrk and move on and find some way of
being constructive. I'm sure we could all tell all the possible
different sides of the newtrk story. Some would make the IESG look
bad; some would make the chair look bad; some would be just very sad
and disappointing. But at the end of the day, we'd be more grumpy,
more disheartened, and have solved nothing. I can play that game if
you want to, but I think it pointless.
If you'd like to work with the IESG or specific IESG members to
improve their communications styles, to understand what they tried to
say, or to suggest ways that they as individuals or the IESG as a
group could be more constructive in the future, please do so. I know
I would be interested in having a two-way dialogue with you, John or
any of the other newtrk participants on those issues. MIT's not that
far away; we all have phones, email and jabber. I've already had
such a dialogue with Eliot and at least from my standpoint I found it
enlightening. However, the IETf list is not a useful venue for
helping either IESG members or working group chairs engage in
personal development. Instead, it tends to encourage defensiveness,
blame, and a lot of other things that do not actually accomplish our
goals of building a better Internet.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf