--On Friday, February 17, 2012 13:34 -0800 Paul Hoffman
<paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All of this, of course, argues against the proposal that
> started this thread.
And I want to repeat, once more, that there was no proposal.
There was an observation about what I consider a problem. That
observation was intended to make it clear that the problem I saw
was the noise, not the content of anyone's remarks and the
degree to which they should be considered. Then there was a
comment, intended in jest, about a way to cut the noise off.
I did intend to start a small discussion about people trying to
round others up to make endorsements but the intent had more to
do with raising consciousness than about making new rules. Over
the last few decades, I've been pretty consistent about my
position about trying to create finely-tuned rules in the IETF
and that position has never been "another layer of rules,
especially rules that require hair-splitting or knowing what
people are actually thinking, will help solve basic problems.
The people who have suggested to me offlist that it would have
been wiser to not say anything until I found a time when there
were no controversial issues in IETF Last Call were almost
certainly correct. Sorry about that.
If what I said and when I said it confused people, I apologize
for my sense of humor. It wouldn't be the first time others
have concluded that my sense of humor is bizarre and made
excessive inferences on that basis.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf