"Hallam-Baker, Phillip via RT" <campaigns@xxxxxxx> writes: > The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision. > This is not accurate. We explicitly included the closing comment date in all of our postings and have made no effort to encourage people to ignore that deadline or re-open the decision. Individuals who ignore the deadline are doing so on their own. > I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the already > known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2) > perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to him > but he has no intention of listening to us. > We very much value the work and expertise of the IETF. It's true that comment periods are unfortunately often a one-way street -- but I don't agree with attributing that quality to RMS or the FSF. We in fact have been reading many of the responses to the comments and are interested in the IETF's rationale in light of the arguments we advanced. > I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that is > CC'd to campaigns@xxxxxxx straight to the bit bucket. The fact that it > is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign page rather > than one noise maker does not make it any less disruptive. We can't really take responsibility for people who choose to ignore the deadline. But I'll have the page unpublished from our site, which should stop additional unwelcome comments from being sent. Our intent was to encourage people to participate in the process, not to circumvent or disrespect it. -- John Sullivan Manager of Operations GPG Key: AE8600B6 _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf