<top-posting intentional> I hadn’t meant to comment on this further, after Melinda intervened. However, since the issue has come up again, I offer the following observation:
The number of people who follow/lurk on this list is, I am sure, much larger than the number who are active on it. Those who are active should, I suggest, be conscious of the effect the tone of the discussion can have on the wider audience. I would not be at all surprised if there were potential contributors who have been discouraged from taking part, because the to-and-fro can appear adversarial beyond what is needed to express and test technical hypotheses. Respectfully, Robin Robin Wilton Technical Outreach Director - Identity and Privacy Internet Society email: [email protected] Phone: +44 705 005 2931 Twitter: @futureidentity On 14 Jul 2015, at 15:57, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015, Stephen Kent wrote: > > Steve, > >> Or, conversely, you could chastise Ben for making offensive statements about >> Google's "position" in his posting. >> I observe that Ben's reply to my question about the "our" in his message is >> that >> he was stating Google's position. >> Since the IETF ethos calls for us to participate as individuals, and since >> Ben >> appears to be trying use Google's stature in supporting a technical argument, >> where is the criticism of his statement? > > While Ben could have made it clearer that he was speaking without his RFC > document author hat on, he did clarify that later on. It is perfectly > reasonable for any participant to explain why their current $dayjob > would or would not be happy or violate/not violate certain protocol bits > under discussion. In fact, such information is useful and can lead to > participants opening up to further discussion and reaching new compromises. > In the end, we would end up with more interoperable implementations from > different vendors. > > In my view, Ben's remark were not "offensive", "flaunting" or "stark". > >> Also, I have never seen any vendor make a statement on an IETF list in which >> they >> openly say that their development plans are not influenced by whatever IETF >> standards may arise. I don't doubt that many vendors feel and act this >> way, but they usually don't flaunt their intent. > > This is a very subjective view on your end. It is fine if Ben wants to > clarify the position of his $dayjob vendor. > >> The issue here isn't whether >> browser UI details are appropriate fodder for IETF standards, but rather >> whether >> Google staff should make stark statements like this in the context of an >> IETF WG >> discussion. > > I hope that Ben continues to explain the views of Google on various > protocol bits. I am also confident that Ben can keep his document author > hat and $dayjob hat apart. If the working group feels that Ben can no > longer do this, we can think about adding another author/editor to this > document, provided we can find a volunteer. > >> On 7/10/15 6:23 AM, Stephen Kent wrote: >> nice of you to reaffirm that Google doesn't care about IETF standards >> in this context. >> Steve, this kind of commentary really needs to stop. >> Melinda > > I concur. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Trans mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
