Dear Steve: Indeed, I can see your perspective on this now, with the aid of information that I was unaware of previously. I did not recall this situation happening before (either I wasn't paying attention at that time, or I was not yet a member of the list at that time, I joined - if I recall correctly - sometime in 2007 or 2006, but I cannot recall exactly), but from what it sounds like that last instance of such an event was meritless enough to justify the suspicion and pessimism seen here. I hereby withdraw my appeal to optimism unless suitable situations arise to prove otherwise. However, I volunteer to attempt to make contact with the FSF and see if they know about the potentially more constructive avenues available to them. (so far, I've been suggested that they join the IUCG, subscribe and discuss in a two-way manner on the list, and contact the working group directly... are there any further suggestions that can be made?) I can attempt to establish contact tomorrow, after I return from my other job, unless someone wants to establish contact more quickly. As it stands I'm already late. On that subject, I need to draft a proposal for an extension of hours in the day from 24 to 36 or more. ;) I'll be back later to resume discussion and contact the FSF if someone else hasn't already. Sincerely, Alex Loret de Mola On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Alex, > > The conclusion I draw from this experience differs from yours. If the > individuals who sent the messages in question choose to become involved > constructively, then there can be some benefit. But, the act of sending the > messages in question has generated ill will, so it was a bad way to begin a > constructive, contributory process. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf