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
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
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
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.
12 matches
Mail list logo
