Colleagues,
Things have gotten somewhat heated in here. I think we need to take a step
back.
While I have no doubts whatsoever that the participants and chairs are
well-intentioned and would like to see this working group make progress in
an appropriate direction, even if we may not all agree
The warning that was issued was perfectly appropriate for a chair to issue.
And it appears to have been issued in consultation with the other chairs and AD
as is fair.
The only thing that remains is for some other chair to have issued the warning.
From: Michael Thomas
Date: Wednesday, 29
On 3/28/23 7:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Let me clarify that
1. I think Mike’s tone to have been aggressive in this, and not
constructive. I would support an official warning being issued.
2. I also think that, as Scott pointed out, when Laura as a wg member
has disagreed
Let me clarify that
1. I think Mike’s tone to have been aggressive in this, and not
constructive. I would support an official warning being issued.
2. I also think that, as Scott pointed out, when Laura as a wg member has
disagreed with Mike, in the interest of fairness, she should let
I would request that both the parties in this disengage and refer this to the
other group chairs.
While a difference of opinion on what is and is not in scope for this WG is
fine, this conversation has taken an ugly turn at this point.
From: Ietf-dkim on behalf of Michael Thomas
Date:
I would like the rest of the working group to know what is considered
unconstructive behavior by the chair:
"The current discussion on the table is for the problem statement. You
are welcome to constructively contribute to the wording of the problem
statement. Your recent posts including the
You are correct and I apologize. I did send a message, but your address was
omitted from the to: list. That is my error and I am very sorry. I will
forward you a copy of the message you should have received offlist.
As for the rest, both Murray and Tim are participating in IETF 116 at the
On 3/28/23 2:31 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
Dear Michael,
Your message of 27 March quoted in its entirety below, included _ad
hominem_ attacks against another participant. _Ad hominem_ is a
fallacious form of argument wherein the person arguing attacks the
person holding an opposing position,
On 3/28/23 11:07 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
On Mar 28, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Since the chair is threatening to ban me, I decided to write up my view of
things in a longer form.
https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2023/03/on-dmarc-arc-and-dkim-replays.html
This has some
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 1:36 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Since the chair is threatening to ban me, I decided to write up my view of
> things in a longer form.
>
> https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2023/03/on-dmarc-arc-and-dkim-replays.html
>
> This has some technical aspects and meta
Since the chair is threatening to ban me, I decided to write up my view
of things in a longer form.
https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2023/03/on-dmarc-arc-and-dkim-replays.html
This has some technical aspects and meta aspects. The meta aspects can
be addressed in the blog comments itself
Very nicely put, Scott. I was also thinking this action ought to be be
initiated by someone else in authority, probably either Tim or Murray, if it is
appropriate.
The timing of this warning also unfortunately makes it seem like it comes at
the behest of another working group participant,
I am attempting to tread carefully here. My success in doing so is
historically quite mixed, so if I fail, apologies in advance.
In my view Micheal has challenged your approach to some of your decisions in a
very sharp manner (which I don't support). In general, I think if a working
group
Dear Michael,
Your message of 27 March quoted in its entirety below, included _ad hominem_
attacks against another participant. _Ad hominem_ is a fallacious form of
argument wherein the person arguing attacks the person holding an opposing
position, rather than attacking the position itself.
14 matches
Mail list logo
