Re: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: grenville armitage writes: Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF. Then I suppose that threads

FOR the PR re: JFC

See the subject. -M< ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Jordi, On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:44:15PM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really > need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants. We hope to offer good connectivity to the other 25% of the participants

Questions for those in favor of PR-Actions in general

There are a couple of arguments consistently used as by the pro-ban/anti-filter camp  that kind of confuse me and maybe someone could explain: Claim:  The claim that all the good people will leave if the noise level is too great and if stubborn people with limited technical ability aren't banned.

Re: Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

grenville armitage writes: > Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense > of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or > clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions at IETF. Then I suppose that threads such as "Meeting Survey Res

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: > thanks for informing us that you're discussing that the IETF Last Call > that started this debate was concerned with behaviour on the ietf-languages > and ltru lists, not the IETF list. Read the Last Call: > >

Richard Shockey supports IETF "renditioning" the Jefsey Morfin problem to the CIA

Now can we get back to our regularly scheduled rants on the pro's an con's of ASCII in RFC's? -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Free speech? Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

william(at)elan.net wrote: [..] Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF [...] Must admit I always thought it was constructive speech (in the sense of attempting to engineer solutions, new architectures, protocols or clarity of understanding) that was at the core of discussions

Re: Meeting Survey Results

-Original Message- From: "Bill Sommerfeld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:44 pm To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Meeting Survey Results On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Among the results are: > 1. Slightly more than 25

RE: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

Noel, I think you may have bitten into a bear-trap. :-) First, the site you cite speculates that is the "author" of this note. That may be the case, but there is no evidence - contained at that site - to support that speculative assertion. It certainly is possible, maybe eve

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

--On 25. januar 2006 00:39 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I refer you to the most interesting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033 especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer, received the following message today" and "'We will contact to

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote: > From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those > representing minority positions should not be prevented from > expressing it OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principl

Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Among the results are: > 1. Slightly more than 25% say their laptop is compatible with 802.11a. > [Note the IETF 65 NOC for Dallas recommends 802.11a] > > 5. Only 1/3 of the respondents expressed satisfaction with the wireless > connectivit

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

Noel Chiappa writes: > OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who > has tried to get people penalized for saying what they think? It seems to me > that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to say whatever he > wants, but others can't? > > I refer yo

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

Marshall Eubanks wrote: March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th. This date was chosen, understanding that it bends the rules a bit, to increase the greater goal of global participation by coinciding with the APRICOT conference the following week (so at least some of the non-asiapac members will be on

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

Jordi Please don't misunderstand me, I have no pension for making trouble here, I was just observing something that seemed a little out of place is all. I have no interest in forcing any changes to your plans. At 06:08 PM 1/24/2006 -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Hi James, This was alre

Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

> From: "william(at)elan.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those > representing minority positions should not be prevented from > expressing it OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who has tried t

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

--On 24. januar 2006 18:08 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will circulate them ASAP. I wonder if that's the right approach.

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Just consider it a big experiment in 802.11a robustness. Regards Marshall On Jan 24, 2006, at 5:34 PM, Odonoghue, Karen F CIV B35-Branch wrote: Jordi, With the RF characteristics of 802.11b/g (including the fact that there are only three non-overlapping channels (in the US) and they all exist

RE: Meeting Survey Results

Jordi, With the RF characteristics of 802.11b/g (including the fact that there are only three non-overlapping channels (in the US) and they all exist in the already overcrowded 2.4 GHz freq range) and the density of users in the meeting rooms at the IETF, you cannot "warrantee" a level of perform

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

Hi James, This was already discussed in the WG, and I guess the AD has taken measures to avoid this being a real problem. Right now it will be a real problem canceling the meeting, as some people has already got non-refundable and very expensive flights after so many weeks of lack of adequate pla

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

At 04:52 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote: March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th. oops On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote: Mark I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 3

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th. On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote: Mark I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, w

Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

Mark I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'. The D

Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

Hello; On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not claim that honor. Sorry- wrong word. Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness). Eliot Nope, that that either. Please note that I claim neither

RE: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

|> -Original Message- |> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |> On Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand |> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:10 AM |> To: Jeroen Massar; ietf@ietf.org |> Subject: Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but |> limitting the nuisance to the worki

Re: Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

--On 24. januar 2006 20:46 +0100 Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My proposal to solve this issue but keeping everybody happy: Two mailinglists: @ietf.org + full.@ietf.org full.@ is completely open, anybody can post anything they want though hopefully on topic on the subject of the w

Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"

I'm against the PR action. From links included with PR action, I do not see that Jefsey's actions include anything that maybe deemed as personal attacks or similar actions clearly prohibited by IETF and his posts seem to be an advocacy and representing his views and IETF as organization is base

Proposal for keeping "free speech" but limitting the nuisance to the working group (Was: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin)

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > Pekka Savola writes: > >> Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's >> postings? Much more convenient to do so in one place. > > Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas > of what he does or doesn't want to read,

Misha Wolf supports PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

I strongly support the proposed RFC 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin. Misha To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Hi Jonne, I'm not sure if I got it. My MUST was on the other way around: We really need to warrantee good coverage for b/g to 75% of the participants. Regards, Jordi > De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Organización: NET/ST/IED > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fe

Re: hotels for Dallas?

Today. Of course, the sun never sets on the Internet. Really today 24 Jan 2006. Ray -Original Message- From: "Adam Roach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:52 am To: "Ray Pelletier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0"Tim Chown" <[EMAIL

Re: Meeting Survey Results

On Jan 23, 2006, at 21:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > In my own case, having a Mac is not easy to get built-in 802.11a. I > can of course buy an external card, Are there cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays? Yes there are. Here's the one I use: http://www.orangeware.com/endusers/wireles

Preventing posting vs preventing the airing of opinion

Distracting from the topic yet again --On 24. januar 2006 05:24 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Theodore Ts'o writes: The problem with the "just filter" approach is that if you then fail to respond to something of substance that got inadvertently filtered out, it

P2P-SIP effort

In light of the recent discussion of P2P protocols, I would like to call people's attention to the proposal to form a working group to develop methods of using SIP in a fully distributed P2P network. There is an active mailing list, there are some internet- drafts, there is a draft charter pro

Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus

-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) > Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to > spell "capital" (i.e. the death penalty) - "capitol" means "location of the > government" Ahh haaadamn word...it'll pay for

Re: hotels for Dallas?

Ray Pelletier wrote: Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: We understand that the new registration system is taking time to get working, and I doubt that's a big problem for many people. But as of this writing, there is no information on the IETF web site about the meeting venue or hotels. Any idea

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

Now that we are reaching the stage of "is not"/"is too" discourse, could the people who need so desperately to convince each other try private e-mail? Please feel free to google my own posting history on this list. At one point, I thought posting to this list was an effective way to accomplish

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

Brian E Carpenter writes: > The IETF standards process requires us to archive WG mailing lists. > For good reasons: open process requires a public record, and prior art > claims can be checked. How much of an open process can there be if some input is censored? > Not true. When one receives a fe

Re: John Cowan supports 3683 PR-action against Jefsey Morfin

Pekka Savola writes: > Why must each and every WG member be required to filter a person's > postings? Much more convenient to do so in one place. Because each and every WG member is an individual, with his own ideas of what he does or doesn't want to read, and imposing the same rules upon everyo

Re: junior lawyers, was List archives and copyright

John Levine writes: > Can I politely encourage people who are not lawyers to refrain from > expressing legal opinions here, or even worse stating legal opinions > as though they were facts? Why? IP litigation is usually a roll of the dice, anyway. > I know just enough about copyright law to kno

Re: Meeting Survey Results

Ken Raeburn wrote: Are there [802.11a] cards with Mac OS X drivers nowadays? This device has a lot of geek appeal; in addition to A/G/B support, it acts as a stand-alone handheld 802.11 network detection device: http://www.zyxel.com/product/model.php?indexcate=1131440677 The spec sheet doe

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

Ack. Let's not sweat the details on this list. We've got two points from this conversation: 1. it is good to have BOFs earlier in the week if possible, subject to scheduling constraints. 2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits, to have some wireless connectivity through F

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

Let's not sweat the details on this list. We've got two points from this conversation: 1. it is good to have BOFs earlier in the week if possible, subject to scheduling constraints. 2. it would be much appreciated, subject to financial limits, to have some wireless connectivity through Friday a

Putting ideas into practice

We're generating quite a bit of e-mail under two or three separate threads that may not be changing anyone's mind, and we're seeing suggestions for actions that probably require BCP changes in order to implement them. While I would not dream of asking people to refrain from sharing their opini

Re: IETFs... the final Friday?

Theodore Ts'o wrote: ... not to mention the cost of keeping the hotel rooms for the extra day or so. (Presumably if some or all of the wireless infrastructure is left running until Friday night, it means that at least some of the rooms can't get released back to the hotel until mid-day Saturday

Re: posting privileges vs receiver-side filtering

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: grenville armitage writes: - protects agains dilution of a WG's historical record (archives that soak up all posts to the WG's mailing list) Stop blindly archiving every message, and this ceases to be a problem. The IETF standards process requires us to archive

Questionnaire [Re: IETFs... the final Friday?]

Ken Raeburn wrote: ... Finally, I noticed the IAD included a question about Friday meeting or not in the survey we were invited to on 9 January. Getting a sense of peoples' views quantitatively is good, though that was a self-selected group, rather than a random sample that could be assigned a