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 <ietf-dkim-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> Date: Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 7:14 AM To: Laura Atkins <la...@wordtothewise.com> Cc: ietf-dkim@ietf.org <ietf-dkim@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] What has been tried and doesn't work should be documented in the problem statement 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><mailto: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<mailto: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
