...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call:
draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour
on this list?
Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago...
Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other
posters, whether new or veteran.
Tim
2013 05:50
Para: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk
CC: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Rude responses
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I experienced rude respondings in IETF list
That would be when you tried to get April 1 RFCs discontinued.
No, I experienced rude response from
I'm I was traveling and not having access to email
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Responder a: t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51
Para: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Isn't
FWIW, if we are going to go down that road, it would be worth noting that there
are various kinds of rudeness that can occur on IETF mailing lists. To my
mind, the most harmful of these is not outright rudeness. Outright rudeness
is to be avoided, certainly.
But the most rude behavior that
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not
listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to
you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully
On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of
rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that
we are discussing here.
That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude.
Managing the discussion is the
On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for
how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would
be responsible for the substance.
I think it should be fairly obvious
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art
that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been
simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance,
+1
Alas, that statement
At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is
not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is
speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they
said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Lesliej...@jlc.net wrote:
I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here.
Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
See the message I just posted. Yes,
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm.
I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the
'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the
exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap
designed to gull the WG into agreeing that
Hi Phillip,
At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair
actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic.
I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis During the
discussions (see thread at
/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam
Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf
I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't
beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some
people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation
business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of
thoes
Hi Aaron,
I will add that it depends on that is there some one stopping rude actions
in IETF, or is it just free to post any respond. I know that the procedure
of IETF does mention such actions, but I don't see practicings so far,
AB
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Aaron Yi DING
On 23 Aug 2013 04:22, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
LC should not be treated as a right of passage, to test the patience of
folks who have developed a document.
rite?
Right - right or rite?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
In pragmatic terms, the current operational model for a LC (and IESG)
review tends to enforce no rules or limits to what can be challenged or
suggested, while simultaneously expecting those who have been doing the
work to
On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to emphasize:
The concern I expressed had nothing at
Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to
emphasize:
The concern I
Hi Dave,
I read the messages on this thread. I suggested to the participant
to comment. I am okay with the comments which were made. I had an
off-list exchange before the message that generated the other
thread. The exchange was not antagonistic.
Some people read please read the
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone
presuming to get in the way of their code going into production.
Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm
On 8/21/13 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
Some folks have simply dismissively said, Go read the archive, without
pointers.
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the
equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes:
The general point is that the new people whom we want
to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
It's not just new people watching and being turned off.
OK, direct question; I'll take the (short) time to give a direct answer.
On 8/22/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the
equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is
responsible for giving a more thorough
On 22/08/13 16:01, Thomas Narten wrote:
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes:
The general point is that the new people whom we want
to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
It's not just new
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the
equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is
responsible for giving a more thorough response. Who do you think that
should be?
If you've had the most fleeting look at this:
I can't myself think of a good justification for sarcasm, (well, maybe [1]:-)
good sarcasm is like good protocol design - many can recognise it, some can
appreciate it, few can truly understand its nuances, and even fewer can create
it.
You're just not one of them.
Lloyd Wood
Pete, et al,
On 8/22/2013 7:22 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
So, now at the point of IETF LC, the correct thing to happen is to
let folks make their objections, point them to places in the prior
conversation where the WG, the chairs, the ADs, and assorted other
folks became convinced, and see if
LC should not be treated as a right of passage, to test the patience of
folks who have developed a document.
rite?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very
On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness
In this conversation between Pete and Dave, there's one point that's
come up which has come up often enough that I want to call it out
separately for comment:
the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not
participating in the conversation.
You think I could bully Patrik?
On 08/21/2013 11:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
The general point is that the new people whom we want
to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat
each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool.
Yes, that is a factor that merits attention.
But not the
Hello,
Lars Eggert mentioned [1] the following:
cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion, and try
to provide data/facts for your different standpoints, so the
rest of us who are sitting on the sidelines watching the
fireworks can form an opinion.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
37 matches
Mail list logo
