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 emails at:
*
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/EUTsQgJ8gdtJY16UdiWxHKLr9E4/
'Neither in their current forms. They are far too vague. They don't
specify what has been tried and/or are not adequate or don't work. They
should not be considered as the only two options.
Also: potential BCP's are in scope via the charter. That requires way
more information than any supposed protocol solution. Since that is by
far the most likely output of this, dismissing any talk of them is
violating the stated charter.'
*
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/NM7tXBcefGA7dOhhUV7QkvSJSns/
'Maybe you should have a conversation with your AD who brought up ARC in
one of the threads here.'
*
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/HVA6D6PNVNE5S7AQQ7i_kaq2TlU/
'As I've said, the two proposed problem statements are far too vague.
It's not about wordsmithing them. It's about having something that
actually discusses what is known about the problem.
And BTW: the charter says that a BCP is in scope. That is not a "side
discussion".'
are not constructive contributions to the discussion. As you are not new
to participating in the IETF I trust you understand what constructive
comments are. Constructive comments include specific wording and scope
changes that you would like the group to consider. Comments such as the
above are not constructive and must stop."
This was all while I was trying to get clarity and scope discussions so
that the problem statement would be less vague.
This is process run amok.
Mike
On 3/28/23 12:01 PM, Laura Atkins wrote:
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 moment. I have been in contact with Murray throughout this process
and have taken the actions I have with his guidance and approval.
Again, I apologize that I was not careful in sending the email
yesterday and left your address off the cc list.
laura
On 28 Mar 2023, at 19:34, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
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, rather than attacking the
position itself. This is not acceptable, and you have been warned
before. I contacted you off-list on behalf of the chairs, under the
procedures in BCP 25, but you have refused to take what we regard as
rectifying action.
I have not been contacted off-list. Surely you can produce evidence.
It is not in my spam folder either.
Mike
--
The Delivery Experts
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
