Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
For the no-tv people like Karin and me: Harper Valley P.T.A USA / NBC/ 36x30m-e / 1981-82 First Episode: Friday 16 January 1981 / 8.00pm Last Episode: Saturday 14 August 1982 / 8.30pm Theme Music: Harper Valley P.T.A. by Tom T. Hall Sitcom starring Barbara Eden as Stella Johnson a widow with a 13 year old daughter, Dee. The pair lived in Harper Valley, Ohio, a Stepford Wives kind of a place, sweet on the surface but with a sleazy undercurrent. Stella was a very pro-active member of the school P.T.A. board a fact which obviously gave the show it's title. The rest of the board thought Stella was far too radical for them and were determined to be rid of her. Leader of the PTA was the highly snooty Flora Simpson Reilly who hated Stella with a passion. Reilly and her family played a big part in the series. For season two there several changes (most notably the shortening of the title to simply Harper Valley) with the PTA side of things taking a back seat and the setting becoming more a traditional suburban one. Stella's inventor Uncle Buster moved in with her and Dee for this season. The show was actually based on the hit record of 1968 Harper Valley PTA by Jeannie C. Riley which in turn led to the 1978 film of the same name which also starred Barbara Eden as Stella. Sorry for the long, long quote but yes that is exactly Harper Valley P.T.A Thankyou King Harald from Norway for playing the most important role. Thankyou Jefsey for playing the litning rod or Thors Hammer Mjoelnir might have hit me. We enjoyed the show but enuf is enuf. Cheers from Peter and Karin Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! I notice the same thing. The Harper Valley PTA is still very much at work, but technical issues seem to be few and far between. What, are you going to convince someone that indeed they really were bothered by someones posts? The idea is not to convince them, but to override them, so that what they think doesn't matter. -- Peter and Karin Dambier The Public-Root Consortium Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49(6252)671-788 (Telekom) +49(179)108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and > it's still the same discussion as when I left! I notice the same thing. The Harper Valley PTA is still very much at work, but technical issues seem to be few and far between. > What, are you going to convince someone that indeed they really were > bothered by someones posts? The idea is not to convince them, but to override them, so that what they think doesn't matter. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! Hell - talk about the ends not justifying the means (oh yes I know this is very very important to the fate of all productivity, I'm sure the yeild will be tremendous). How 'bout this - if a PR-Action or any "rough concensus" style ban can't be decided in one week then quite obviusly the person is not making a sufficient nuiscance of themselves and the matter should be dropped. On technical matters heated debate and convincing arguments are valuable but in a PR matter it's not. What, are you going to convince someone that indeed they really were bothered by someones posts? "Gee thanks Bob, I didn't know just how much that guy was upsetting me and hindering my productivity." This isn't regression therapy and no one should be convincing people of their opinions or perceptions. Make the motion, hear concensus, no cross-talk allowed, make the decision, move on. Oh and don't let the interior decorators influence the architects - if the policies and penalties aren't clear at the time of the motion then the motion is governed by whatever is clear and you can amend the policies seperately for the next time. You can't however dynamically change them and have them go into effect retroactively (or dynamically clarify them or however you'd describe this merger of congress and the courtroom). Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] I take a look at the IETF email after four months and it's still the same discussion as when I left! Hell - talk about the ends not justifying the means (oh yes I know this is very very important to the fate of all productivity, I'm sure the yeild will be tremendous). How 'bout this - if a PR-Action or any "rough concensus" style ban can't be decided in one week then quite obviusly the person is not making a sufficient nuiscance of themselves and the matter should be dropped. On technical matters heated debate and convincing arguments are valuable but in a PR matter it's not. What, are you going to convince someone that indeed they really were bothered by someones posts? "Gee thanks Bob, I didn't know just how much that guy was upsetting me and hindering my productivity." This isn't regression therapy and no one should be convincing people of their opinions or perceptions. Make the motion, hear concensus, no cross-talk allowed, make the decision, move on. Oh and don't let the interior decorators influence the architects - if the policies and penalties aren't clear at the time of the motion then the motion is governed by whatever is clear and you can amend the policies seperately for the next time. You can't however dynamically change them and have them go into effect retroactively (or dynamically clarify them or however you'd describe this merger of congress and the courtroom). Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
> "Noel" == Noel Chiappa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> From: "Gray, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Clearly we should be >> thinking about some way to "charge" participants for >> potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There >> is some minimal processing time associated with any appeal for >> everyone who has anything to do with it. Noel> The legal system in several countries has the concept of a Noel> "vexatious litigator" label, which, when applied to someone, Noel> means they are not allowed to file a lawsuit without the Noel> approval of a some third party, generally a judge. Noel> I suggest the IESG/whomever take immediate steps to amend Noel> the appeals process so that there is a suitable process by Noel> which someone who abuses the appeals process by repeatedly Noel> filing pointless, unworthy appeals can be labelled a Noel> "vexatious appellant", whereby they are barred from filing Noel> appeals unless any such appeals are approved by some Noel> appropriate third party. Hi. I'm not sure it is necessary to go that far. I'm actually trying to discuss this issue with the rest of the IESG and see if we can come to agreement on how we'd like to handle making sure that appeals don't become a DOS. Clearly we'll need to let the community know what we decide. Also, if it involves modifying a BCP and not just establishing internal IESG procedure, we'll need a formal last call. Clearly we should take any community comments we receive into account. However I don't think this particular issue requires the entire ietf list to design a solution. I suspect we'll be able to come up with a first cut on our own without taking up the time of the entire community. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
> From: "Gray, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Clearly we should be thinking about some way to "charge" participants > for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There is > some minimal processing time associated with any appeal for everyone > who has anything to do with it. The legal system in several countries has the concept of a "vexatious litigator" label, which, when applied to someone, means they are not allowed to file a lawsuit without the approval of a some third party, generally a judge. I suggest the IESG/whomever take immediate steps to amend the appeals process so that there is a suitable process by which someone who abuses the appeals process by repeatedly filing pointless, unworthy appeals can be labelled a "vexatious appellant", whereby they are barred from filing appeals unless any such appeals are approved by some appropriate third party. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
> Sam, > Clearly we should be thinking about some way to "charge" > participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process > in general. There is some minimal processing time associated > with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it. > I don't think posting rights is the way to do this. For > one thing, it is obvious that this too can be appealed. > Perhaps the appeal process should require that a token > cash amount must be deposited with some ISOC general fund - > with the provision that the deposit would be reimbursed if > the appeal is found to have merit? I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I simply cannot let this one pass. Incentives of various sorts, including negative incentives like this, are something economists have studied quite extensively. (*) What they've found is that in many cases this backfires badly - imposing a fee results in much more of the behavior you want to discourage, not less. The problem seems to be that by assigning a price you're in effect saying "this is how much an appeal costs, if you feel like spending this amount you should feel free to appeal." It changes what should be an extraordinary and exceptional event into an ordinary and normal one. And this will apply regardless of the spin you put on the matter - money talks ... well, you know the rest. I'm pretty confident that we have enough people with sufficient disposable income and strongly held feelings about something or other that this approach would cause a lot of trouble. And no, I don't have an alternative to suggest, other than to note that appeals are still pretty rare and I believe Mr. Morfin is unique in having filed more than one, let alone five. In other words, I'm not sure that aside from Mr. Morfin there's a real problem to be solved here. Ned (*) I'm at work and don't have any books handy to cite, so I'm afraid I cannot give any good references for work done in this area. Perhaps someone else can oblige... However, the popular book "Freakonomics" discusses this issue, albeit not in sufficient depth for my taste. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Mor fin
Sam, Clearly we should be thinking about some way to "charge" participants for potentially abusing the IETF appeals process in general. There is some minimal processing time associated with any appeal for everyone who has anything to do with it. I don't think posting rights is the way to do this. For one thing, it is obvious that this too can be appealed. Perhaps the appeal process should require that a token cash amount must be deposited with some ISOC general fund - with the provision that the deposit would be reimbursed if the appeal is found to have merit? -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Sam Hartman --> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 4:14 PM --> To: Frank Ellermann --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: FW: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning --> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin --> --> > "Frank" == Frank Ellermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: --> --> Frank> Unrelated, I'm not sure why it was published --> _there_ , the --> Frank> IAB has its own directory for appeals. --> --> It's an appeal to the IESG. --> --> Jefsey's been a bit active in the appeal front lately: --> --> 1) He appealed a typo correction in RFC 3066bis to the area --> director. --> --> 2) He appealed the rejection in 1 above to the IESG. --> --> 3) He appealed his posting suspension from ietf-languages --> to the area --> director, but the area director believed the IESG as a whole --> needed to rule so we did. --> --> 4) He appealed 3 above to the IAB. --> --> 5)He appealed the approval of RFC3066bis to the IESG. That --> appeal is ongoing. --> --> --> ___ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
