Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meetingof the IETF

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

 



Just so some of the gallery is heard from on the list, I am presuming that they are also counting the input from the survey.
I have no idea how many people responded to that, nor what they said.
I know that I indicated that I thought this was reasonable as long as certain specific risks had been evaluated by the IAOC. (With the implication that I trusted them to make that judgment.)

The only reason I am posting this is so that it is clear to folks that not all the input has been on this list.

Yours,
Joel

Adam Roach wrote:
On 9/24/09 18:31, Sep 24, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
To repeat: The IAOC does not think we are in any real danger of having our meeting disrupted or terminated due to actions which would be deemed in violation of the clause in question. We expect a meeting in China to be just like any other IETF meeting and we will be saying more about this soon. Stay tuned.


Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a representation of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails imply (or, as above, expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of the IAOC.

If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of several dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I completely understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind the scenes to pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved in that work without becoming deeply emotionally invested in the outcome. I honestly sympathize with your position, and completely understand why you would hold it personally.

However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a formal statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the IAOC's motives in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the "request for community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma approval of the IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC representative, then your goal in this thread appears to have been exclusively aimed at attempting to refute or dismiss the community's concerns, rather than listening to them.

I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for your position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this question, it would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant community concern about this provision."

Your statement that I quote above is a continuation of your pattern of interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has raised on the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position. However, you are now attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to the IAOC.

In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not willing to accept community input, it should not have solicited it.

/a
_______________________________________________

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

_______________________________________________

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

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