On Dec 6, 2007, at 6:11 AM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Alper, this reads to me like you are operating under the misguided
assumption that WGs have membership, even that you get to decide who
is
part of your WG and who is not. This is very dangerous territory.
Look, guys, no offense, but the point of having this discussion here
is for us to come to understand how you both have arrived at your
positions, so that we can figure out what we want to do as a group.
When you start talking about dangerous territory, and when Alper
starts talking about politics, it really misses the point. The
debate here is not happening for your or Alper's benefit. It's
happening so that more working group members can come to understand
your positions. Anything you say that doesn't further that goal is
simply delaying that process.
For my part, I was undecided about this at the meeting, and I'm still
pretty much undecided. And based on how the voting went in the
meeting, I think this is an accurate description of where a lot of
interested participants are. I've been trying to give you guys the
respect of spending some time trying to understand your positions. I
know it's frustrating to keep getting clueless questions about a
thought process that you've already followed to its end. We're not
doing this out of disrespect - we're trying to get a clue. It would
really help me, and probably others here, if you and Richard and Alper
could answer the questions us cluebies are asking and not waste time
trying to convince each other. I don't see that happening without
outside intervention, which is what we are here for.
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
