Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Does the intrinsic merit of a point of view depend on how it is
> expressed? Are people here so much slaves of their emotions that they
> cannot look past the way in which an opinion is expressed when
> evaluating that opinion on its own merits?
Does it make a diff
As much as I hate to, I have to support this based on the personal attacks
I have read.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:22:10 -0400
David Kessens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The IESG received a request from Dave Crocker to take action under RFC
> 3683 against Dean Anderson. Mr C
> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>> I don't know if they are related, but your point seems very valid
>> to me. IOW, from watching and reading over many years, the recent
>> (2?) years seems like a "crying" wish to get back to a successful
>> IETF, back to its hayday (or glory days), instead of what it has
>
Thomas Gal writes:
> Need implies accepting someone elses constraints. That's a poor
> simplification, because 100 people could tell someone that they
> "need" to stop posting friviously and harming list progress, and
> they can still chose to ignore it if there are no teeth to the
> rules.
A dis
Gray, Eric writes:
> I disagree with your statement: "Most people will resort
> to personal attacks very rapidly and readily once someone else
> disagrees with them." At least in the current context. I feel
> that this is an overly harsh charaterization of people generally
> and people in the c
I'm sorry I didn't read these calm well thought out comments before I
responded to some of the other posts.
-Tom
>
> Hold on.
>
> To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic
> to: we don't like RFC 3683.
>
> Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF last
> c
Gray, Eric writes:
> It's just possible that the threshold might be higher for some
> than it is for others.
So which threshold is the "right" threshold?
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Well put. Actually I have yet to see ANYONE refute any of the examples
Harald made about inappropriate acts. Nothing but "I don't support this
action universally." THAT sounds a lot like not tolerating disagreement.
-Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
> > For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to
> exercise
> > his freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the
> > morning (without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other
> > wishes to exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as
> to be well
>
Actually the whole DNS caching and forwarding scheme is simply analagous to
a nice and easy heuristic greedy algorithm. It's not perfect..but it's
about the best you can do without being rediculous.
-Tom
> The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file
> locally was back around 19
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>
> Melinda
>
Yes. We have an RFC with a procedure. "I don't like the procedure, and will
oppose it regard
Eric Gray writes...
> To one person, the mere fact that another person disgrees
> with them is conclusive proof that they don't understand. To
> another person, the mere statement that they don't understand
> clearly implies some impairment.
>
> It's possible that both of these peopl
Anthony,
I disagree with your statement: "Most people will resort
to personal attacks very rapidly and readily once someone else
disagrees with them." At least in the current context. I feel
that this is an overly harsh charaterization of people generally
and people in the current foru
Anthony G. Atkielski writes...
> Then it should be straightforward to automate it in the form of a
> robot that emotionlessly evaluates each post.
No. I did not claim that the evaluation was objective. It is in fact
subjective. I do claim that the "reasonable man" (and I use that term
in the
David,
I disagree that we can determine "overly insistent" by a
simple counting of postings, but I do agree that it is usually
not hard to determine when someone is being overly persistent.
It's just possible that the threshold might be higher for some
than it is for others.
You m
Consensus is reached when we work through those issues people find disagreeable. Removing those who bring up disagreeable issues is not a part of the "consensus" solution.
Has anyone tried asking Jersey to frame points made in a different manner?
I know I haven't, but that's generally because I
Nelson, David writes:
> I think that this is not so hard to distinguish as you suggest.
Then it should be straightforward to automate it in the form of a
robot that emotionlessly evaluates each post.
> There are two general cases: (a) overly insistent and (b) overly
> personal.
How much is "ove
Anthony G. Atkielski writes...
> There are no objective standards for obnoxious, abusive, or
> disrespectful speech.
I think that this is not so hard to distinguish as you suggest. There
are two general cases: (a) overly insistent and (b) overly personal.
The overly insistent poster will almost
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
>
> If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
> we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
> to the responses.
>
> But as of now, we have not received such a request in
> the case of JFC Morfin.
>
> In ter
kent crispin writes:
> Toleration of disagreement has almost nothing to do with it. Instead, it's
> more a matter of signal to noise ratio on a limited bandwidth channel. If
> you fill up a list with ignorant drivel, people who don't have time to deal
> with drivel will go away, leaving the list
Doug Ewell writes:
> It has already been explained here that this has NOTHING to do with
> tolerance for different opinions. It has everything to do with the
> obnoxious, abusive, disrespectful manner in which those opinions have
> been expressed.
Do you think that is an improvement?
Does the i
> I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea
> that we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent,
> frequent and/or hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of
> the IETF consensus process, as I am quite certain that I have
> fallen into many of those categories from time-to-time.
"fro
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > I don't know if they are related, but your point seems very valid
> > to me. IOW, from watching and reading over many years, the recent
> > (2?) years seems like a "crying" wish to get back to a successful
> > IETF, back to its hayda
hello ,
I am a first time poster , I have been on the lists for only a couple of
months .and I have to agree with this line of thought .
I believed I would be witnessing the birth of new standards , but sofar this
is not the case .
Stephen Skinner
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
I don't know if they are related, but your point seems very valid
to me. IOW, from watching and reading over many years, the recent
(2?) years seems like a "crying" wish to get back to a successful
IETF, back to its hayday (or glory days), instead of what it has
become lately
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic to: we
> > don't like RFC 3683.
>
> I must admit a certain amount of bemusement at the current debate, since the
> IETF list has,
A committee is accepting nominations for the IEEE Internet Award. It
may be presented annually to an individual or team of up to three for
exceptional contributions to the advancement of Internet technology
for network architecture, mobility and/or end-use applications.
In the evaluation proc
Dear all,
the popularity contest triggered by Harald Alvestrand results into this:
At 15:00 07/10/2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list,
a host of people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all
for an
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: I have filed the petition (Re: Anyone not in favor
> of a PR-Action against Jefse
As I said in my message of 15 hours ago, I have filed the petition, and
will speak no more of the matter before the Last Call.
Just in case anyone else didn't notice.
--On fredag, oktober 07, 2005 09:00:57 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest that, as Harald pos
i don't spend much time on the ietf these days; however, as the
author of 3683, i've received enough emails asking for comment, to
warrant a brief reply. this reply is not specifically directed to
margaret, she just has the misfortune of having authored the last
email in the thread that has
understood, but i was just responding to the subject line
--bill
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:40:52AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
>
> If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
> we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
On 10/7/05 12:42 AM, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial
> of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what
> he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him. Censorship
> is disguised
Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list, a host of
people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all for an
"informal" request for a
PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a Last Call ?
Which will occur at
some
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic to: we
> don't like RFC 3683.
I must admit a certain amount of bemusement at the current debate, since the
IETF list has, historically (although not in the last couple of year
Gray, Eric wrote:
I agree fully with Margaret except that I would suggest that people
might feel that a properly augmented version of 3934 would make it
possible to make 3683 obsolete. The augmentation Margaret suggests
are probably needed, but would be just a start, given how little the
RFC cur
Sam Hartman wrote:
"JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JFC> On 09:53 03/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
>> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
>>> http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
>>> Comments welcome. Is it to be understood a
Hold on.
To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the
topic to: we don't like RFC 3683.
Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF
last call etc. But the code has never been tested until
the IESG recently received a request to take a PR action
against somebody - and we a
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.
But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.
In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in
Me
Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
--
Internal Virus Database
> Technologists with a penchant for the meta-discussion may stay.
>
> gja
>
So I guess you'll be staying then since you have quite the penchant for
contributing to these things which you claim to hate so much.
Though it's obvious you enjoy the protection of a closed community, that
does not chang
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:45:57PM -0700,
Nick Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 13 lines which said:
> for some reason assumed he was suggesting everyone recieve a copy of
> the tld zones hosted by the root servers.
You were mentioning ".com" which is not hosted by any root
server.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:03:41PM -0700,
Nick Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
> The last time I had a reason keep a copy of the root file locally
...
> I think .com alone weighed in at over 3 gigs
So what? We're talking about the root zone, not about ".com".
Nick Staff wrote:
[..]
I really, really don't want to get into another one of these, but let's be
clear - no matter what you say, no matter how long you say it for, and no
matter who agrees with you, Anthony is right and you are not.
Since Anthony made an assertion about those who tolerate di
44 matches
Mail list logo
