On 3/16/2008 7:36 PM, Michael StJohns wrote: > My apologies, I was going to leave this alone, but this ... > chastisement .. is off-target. > > At 09:50 PM 3/16/2008, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> Mike, whatever your personal opinion, based on the public >> information many people have concluded in good faith that something >> went wrong. > > I agree with this. Something went wrong. > >> Asserting that the problems are FUD does not help anyone resolve >> this. > > I'm sorry you didn't actually read what I wrote. I did not refer to > the problems as FUD. I called one specific statement by LD FUD and > hogwash. The statement was an attempt to use an emotional response to > an unlikely or improbable action by the IAB sometime in the future to > gain an outcome (e.g. don't let this dangerous precedent stand) that > matched his personal belief. > > What would you call it if not FUD? Never mind. Substitute "an > emotional appeal" for FUD and "This is an absurd extrapolation of > what the IAB may do in the far future" for hogwash and see if you > like the text better. I guess I should respond to this. Why would the extrapolation be absurd? Where is it stated that a confirmation body cannot seek such information? One of the IAB requirements is to provide a summary of feedback on a candidate. From there to asking for verbatim feedback is not a stretch. I am not saying IAB would ask for this. I am saying one of the confirmation bodies could ask for this and the nomcom would be in the same situation. Expressing incredulity does not work in such situations. I have tried. regards, Lakshminath > > Mike > _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf