Subject: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 16:29:01 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> it appears that management of WG participant conduct has been
>> rather lax
>
> IBTD, the WG Chairs and the responsible AD did a very good job.

I would be tempted to agree with Bruce on this, except that my lack of
experience on other IETF Working Groups precludes a meaningful
comparison.

For all I know, the sheer volume of misquoting of group members,
deliberate misrepresentation of members' clearly stated intentions,
revisitation of closed action items, personal and professional attacks,
disrespect for the chairs and AD, outright falsehoods, and other mayhem
witnessed on this list is absolutely typical of other IETF Working
Groups.  Maybe RFCs 3683 and 3934 are meant for some higher level of
disruption and "unprofessional commentary" -- say, direct physical
threats -- or maybe they're not intended for serious application at all.
Maybe this is just the way things are in the IETF.

All I know is, none of the other six non-IETF mailing lists to which I
subscribe would ever have stood for this, certainly not over a sustained
period of eight months.

This WG has been made to be a very unpleasant experience for me, and all
I wanted to do was help put together a code list.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 04:21:26 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

>> the WG Chairs and the responsible AD did a very good job.

> I would be tempted to agree with Bruce on this, except that
> my lack of experience on other IETF Working Groups precludes
> a meaningful comparison.

My experience is limited to USEFOR and MARID.  The latter must
have been an all-time low in the history, "mismanagement" does
not begin to describe the most blatant problems.  So from that
somewhat skewed POV maybe I should have said "good" instead of
"very good".

Otherwise my background is Fido- and Usenet, I'm not surprised
when I need asbestos for a flamewar.  And I'm ready to push
back if somebody misrepresents what I said (as Jefesey tried
it with you).  And I'm ready to ignore off topic nonsense.

While it can be necessary to use instruments like RfC 3934 this
can backfire, if users cry "censorship" it could be worse than
whatever the original cause was.  Sure, when Jefsey harrassed
John's employer it was "XAB" (= excessively annoying behaviour,
the reason for an "excommunication" in Fidonet).  Similar to
RfC 3863, but RfC 3863 only addresses DOS-attacks, not "XAB".

Fidonet rules would require a (serious) attempt of a peaceful
settlement before a "formal policy complaint".  And Randy did
something in this direction.  "Retro-moderation" (= moderation
after an offensive article was posted) has its drawbacks, but
IMHO it's far better than "moderation" (= censor all articles
before they are posted).  I wouldn't participate in moderated
(= censored) groups, unless I trust the moderators absolutely.

> other mayhem witnessed on this list is absolutely typical of
> other IETF Working Groups.

You started with a statement that you can't judge it, now you
say it's absolutely typical (?)

> Maybe RFCs 3683 and 3934 are meant for some higher level of
> disruption and "unprofessional commentary"

Above all they are new, RfC 3934 was published October 2004,
most probably Jefsey, Randy, and Scott were the "beta-testers".

For any unlucky RfC 3683 "tester", it requires IETF consensus,
a "last call", it is on the same level as a proposed standard.

BTW, it is also new (March 2004), and IIRC it was never tested.
Let one of the ADs who helped to create this memo test it for
the first time.

> This WG has been made to be a very unpleasant experience for
> me, and all I wanted to do was help put together a code list.

Odd, after MARID and USEFOR I really liked LTRU, and of course
all I wanted was to help you with the weird region codes.  It
was especially fun to work with Addison, as if we had precisely
the same "vision", and the only problem was to get some details
right for obscure formal rules, but no serious differences or
ego-crap (some editors always insist on their own ideas).

Okay, I didn't like Randy's "ticket flood".  OTOH it was clear
that he's forced to prepare for Jefsey's intended appeal.

                            Bye, Frank

---

From: "John.Cowan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:43:50 -0400

Frank Ellermann scripsit:

> Sure, when Jefsey harrassed
> the reason for an "excommunication" in Fidonet).  

I would say XAB from a DAU.

-- 
Using RELAX NG compact syntax to        John Cowan
develop schemas is one of the simple    http://www.reutershealth.com
pleasures in life....                   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Jeni Tennison                 <[email-masked]>