Hi Russ,
At 12:07 07-09-2009, Russ Housley wrote:
I'm sorry that you read it that way. The first response that was
drafted was a point-by-point reply as you suggest. It was extremely
repetitive, with the same points being made over and over. I found
the reply cumbersome at best. It was my
Pete Thomas:
This response is my own. I have not coordinated it with the Trustees.
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected
Dear Trustees,
I agree with the message from Thomas Narten, cc:ed below. I expected,
and request that you provide, a reply to John Klensin's appeal that is
more directly responsive to the issues that John raised.
Also, I agree with John's concerns about discussion of this appeal
being
Thomas:
I'm sorry that you read it that way. The first response that was
drafted was a point-by-point reply as you suggest. It was extremely
repetitive, with the same points being made over and over. I found
the reply cumbersome at best. It was my suggestion that we take the
points that
On 9/7/09 at 3:07 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have
I just had a chance to review this, and unfortunately I find myself in complete
agreement with Pete on all of the points he makes.
Ned
On 9/7/09 at 3:07 PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com writes:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 6:28 PM -0700 David Kessens
david.kess...@nsn.com wrote:
John,
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 07:33:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Instead, it was about the
behavior of the Trustees and their interactions with the IETF
Community. _That_ discussion is
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
responded to in a direct manner, with a clear
The entire response has been posted to the tlp-interest list
Why wasn't it send to the ISS? It may be easier ...
Please copy the response to the IETF list
Thanks
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--On Thursday, September 03, 2009 15:42 -0700 IETF
Administrative Director i...@ietf.org wrote:
Greetings;
The IETF Trust has considered the appeal by John C Klensin on
July 18, 2009 and has posted a response at the Trust appeals
page, http://trustee.ietf.org/trustappeals.html
The
John,
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 07:33:37PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
Instead, it was about the
behavior of the Trustees and their interactions with the IETF
Community. _That_ discussion is better carried out on the IETF
list, in plain sight of the community, even that portion who do
not
Greetings;
The IETF Trust has considered the appeal by John C Klensin on July 18,
2009 and has posted a response at the Trust appeals page,
http://trustee.ietf.org/trustappeals.html
The Trustees request that discussion of this response be on the
tlp-interest list, tlp-inter...@ietf.org, with cc
13 matches
Mail list logo
