Re: draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis

[William McCall]

On 08/31/2013 09:52 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:


Lars Eggert made the following comment:

  I actually WANT this draft to talk about the CONSEQUENCES (posting 
rights

   getting taken away, personal attendance made impossible, etc.) of not
   following the code of conduct! I think that would be by FAR the most
   impactful addition we could make.

Some of the above is already possible (see Appendix B).

Just one point that irks me a bit about this draft... this draft would 
imply the violation of the code upon those who do (however 
inadvertently) are 1) Native English speakers and 2) use slang of some 
nature (which is quite arbitrary). I'd ask for the original phrasing to 
be more or less preserved (I see a few wording changes worthwhile) to 
avoid the implied absurdity.


The application of Lars' comment would potentially provide for penalty 
here, so I think it is worthwhile to fight this point now.


I promise I'll try not to use my generally unintelligible speech.

--WM

Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats

[William McCall]

On 07/02/2013 07:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

If I knew that 97% of appeals get rejected, I wouldn't even bother
writing one...

i have never considered writng one.  sour grapes make bad wine.

randy
I used to read the appeals for my own education. Some pretty hilarious 
stuff in there. I feel this contributor's frustration though (even 
though the IESG is right).


I'd tend to agree with you Randy... save it for something worth 
advocating for.