On 04/08/14 01:08, Joe Touch wrote: > By all means. Stand on process over correctness.
Frankly, I don't see how you could both consider that the charter is broken and yet contribute a proposal for how to meet the goals of the charter. You certainly did the latter (remotely) at IETF-90, and now seem to be doing the former, in this thread. So, its not just a process point. I really am puzzled by your behaviour, which seems to be totally inconsistent. (Esp. given that you are well aware of IETF processes.) S. > > Joe > >> On Aug 3, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> Joe, >> >>> On 04/08/14 00:48, Joe Touch wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 3, 2014, at 4:25 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Joe, >>>> >>>>> On 03/08/14 16:42, Joe Touch wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We can either discuss these issues or continue to ignore them. >>>> >>>> Please either provide evidence that "these issues" were ignored >>>> during the charter discussion, >>> >>> The contradiction speaks for itself. >> >> Frankly I don't think that's at all sufficient, nor >> even remotely compelling. A pointer to where you or >> someone raised this point when the charter was in >> play on this list or the IETF list might help. Absent >> that, or even with that and no apparent support that >> its a real issue, my conclusion is that you are just >> second guessing the IETF consensus process and therefore >> ought be ignored on this point. >> >> S. >> >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tcpinc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Tcpinc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc > > _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
