Supporting what Tim said, and expanding a bit (and, yes, it's general, not specific): If we all do our best to stick to the technical issues and to keep our tone neutral, then it's easier for the chairs to respond appropriately to cases of inability to conduct civil discourse, and to target that response appropriately. Best efforts to understand each other, to respond to the points, and to avoid implications that anyone's concerns are trivial will make it possible for the chairs to manage the discussion and to take appropriate action when they have to. If you think something's been hashed out enough and that further discussion along the same line isn't useful, don't say that publicly: let the chairs know what you think, and let them handle it from there.
Barry On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 11:52 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1/6/2021 8:47 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > You should have a pretty good idea based on these arguments over the past few > months to have a sense of how responses will be received. Take a step back > and take a second read. > > This goes for all. Folks have very specific views of how they think mail > should work > > > Tim, > > This has nothing to do with differences in opinion. It has to do with his > persistent inability to conduct civil discourse in the face of disagreement. > > Disagreement is fine. Abuse is not. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > [email protected] > 408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > American Red Cross > [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
