Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Aside from that, I tend not to aim to be argumentative & wish >> more folks on this list had similar discipline. My thanks go >> to those with a similar approach. (And yes, that is an indirect >> rebuke specifically aimed at aspects of your otherwise overall >> excellent contribution to DKIM, i.e a mixed message;-) > > > Stephen, > > For a working group chair to post text like this that (only) targets a > single participant is unfortunate, first, given how freely ad hominems > have been flowing, yet you fail to focus on them too,
Fair enough. I didn't directly do that (until just now), except in reaction to a mail directed to me from you that I consider was needlessly argumentative. > and second because > you offer a generic rebuke without any supporting basis. I think this thread is a supporting basis. I'm sure you don't. We disagree. > From a process management standpoint, your posting therefore appears to > be seeking to undermine my participation That's not the case. > In what model of credible IETF working group management is that sort of > behavior by a chair acceptable. Rhetorical question skipped. Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
