On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:31 AM Patrik Fältström <paf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Nov 2018, at 20:18, Mary B wrote:
> [MB] That awakening was overly rude, if you recall. It went well beyond letting them know how things are done at IETF. [/MB]
Yes, but the situation was double-complicated as I explained because we had already four other proposals, so instead of having IETF choose one, they would be one of five alternatives.
[MB] Right. And, it was the folks that were champions of the 4th that were the most inhospitable to these folks. At that time, there was already lots of water under that bridge. Certainly, the proponents were folks that could hold their own. But, it did do a great job of highlighting, as you note, that IETF is a very tough environment to work in. And, I can guarantee, it would have been impossible for anyone other than folks in that demographic to make any headway. [/MB]
I do not blame anyone in that situation be surprised, chocked and whatever else.
[MB] From my viewpoint that was some of the most deplorable behavior I've seen amongst that group - the only thing worse was some of the early meetings with 3GPP folks. But, I might be more sensitive than others since I'd also been the target of some of those folks in earlier meetings. And, of course, from certain folks we tend to tolerate that behavior because of who they are. But, continuing to defend it as okay isn't a good thing. [/MB]
IETF is not easy to participate in, I also notice quite a lot nowadays when I go to so few meetings and am participating on only specific topics, very specific topics.
Patrik
