Dear Sergeant-at-arms,
I know little of the topics discussed, but found Michael's Py's message by no means unprofessional. To me, it was just fine. I'm writing this in the hopes that you adjust the bar where you get active just ever so slightly upwards (towards tolerance!).
With great appreciation for the job you are doing,
Stephan
On 8/1/19, 19:23, "ietf on behalf of Matthew A. Miller" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of linuxwolf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Messages such as the one below[1] are not appropriate for the public
list. Name-calling and disparaging individuals are not considered
professional conduct; messages whose primary purpose appear to be to
inflame and provoke even less so. Voicing disagreement with the actions
and opinions of others is of course appropriate, but we should do so in
a less inflammatory way.
I reached out to Michel privately, and he requested we continue here. I
maintain that we are striving to conduct ourselves in a respectful and
professional manner, and the message below is not. Please more
carefully consider word choices.
- Matthew A. Miller
Sergeant-at-arms
[1]: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/c76zu2rP4zMkgNgTb5Mx8tlZF-w >
On 19/07/27 20:43, Michel Py wrote:
>> Keith Moore wrote :
>> IMO it is a Very Bad Idea, because it's a slippery slope from there to making judgments
>> about who "should" get to attend or who "should" be privileged as to influence policy.
>
> I have been waiting 20 years for this.
> As it turns out, the rest of the world is perfectly happy to leave you and the IETF slip into the oblivion of this non-NAT world. The last 20 years of your contribution to eliminate NAT have been acknowledged, and the marketplace will be happy to quote your positions on it.
>
> We are all saved. Thanks to Keith Moore, we now live in an IPv6-only, NAT-free world.
>
> Besides the carbon footprint, why don't you all loons solve the peace in the Middle East and world hunger, while you are at it ?
> The world needs you.
>
