Tim Bray writes:
Ban him. Openness and inclusiveness are virtues, but not absolutes.
They are only virtues when they are absolute.
This ban seems to me an expression of respect for the time and energy
of many dedicated and talented participants here, which are currently
being wasted by
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
This entire fiasco tells me that the people nominally participating
in it have a lot of time on their hands and very little to do, and
they choose to waste it bickering like preschoolers on a playground
rather than spend it trying to do the actual work of the IETF.
Yesterday I proposed to take advantage from my experience for the
good of the IETF. I used filibustering as what I had been engaged
into. This was a big Franglish confusion. I explained it and
apologised for the inconvenience in a mail to Sam Hartmann. I asked
help to find a correct term. I
I second what Michael said.
It may be easy for somebody not involved to hit the delete key, and
it's reasonable to ask How hard is it to hit the delete key. But
for people doing the work, who have to worry about whether to
respond or not, whether keeping silent will give everybody else
This is NOT the United States Senate and House of Representatives.
You may think that filibustering is normal and appreciated and
democratic. It is not.
This is the core of the issue. The point of this forum is to get work
done. The rules for participation are not hard to figure out, and are
Hi all,
The purpose of the document is to creates a registry for location types.
These values are used in draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt and
draft-ietf-geopriv-radius-lo-04.txt. The document can be used for RPID
draft-ietf-simple-rpid-10.txt but this is not done today. As noted in
the
Hi Sam,
please find some feedback below:
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2) Inadequate context for use:
The document does not make reference to RPID, except in
acknowledgement. Thus, it has to be interpreted as
stand-alone, and must
Noel == Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clearly we should be
thinking about some way to charge participants for
potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There
is some minimal processing time associated with any appeal
There are some of the early Internet Monthly reports online at
http://ftp.us.xemacs.org/ftp/pub/internet-monthly-reports/ (incomplete
before mid-1986)
The April 1986 edition (imr8604.txt) has the following...
INTERNET ARCHITECTURE .Grab=5;
.IOvr=3;1. A third draft of a document on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! Hell - talk about the ends not justifying the means (oh yes I know this is very very important to the fate of all productivity, I'm sure the yeild will be tremendous).
How
Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
The values listed in the Location Types Registry document
are not displayed to the user. As such, we don't cover
internationalization support.
That wasn't clear from the draft under discussion. It should
get some I18N considerations explaining why that's no issue.
11 matches
Mail list logo
