Subject: Re: don't overthink, was Just so I'm clear

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:26:28 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>

    > Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action

Sorry all, but my bogometer just blew out.

He isn't being turfed out of his post (in a high-level sense); he quit.

He simply wasn't polite or thoughtful enough to do so formally, instead of by
just going catatonic on us.

It's very rude to do that. If he's going to bail, he ought to have the decency
to summon the strength needed to say 'I quit'. That's not a long or involved
communication, and unless he's completely catatonic, to the point of being
institutionalized, he should be able to manage that, at least.

I know whereof I speak, having been through some bad meltdowns myself, so
much as I have great _personal_ sympathy for him (knowing what he must be
going through to act like this), _institutionally_, I don't.

Anyway, in view of that failure on his part, I would recommend that he never,
ever, be considered for _any_ post in the I*, ever again. People who can do
that sort of thing shouldn't be trusted with any responsibility ever again.

And now, yes, I _am_ being punitive.

Because I'm ticked off at the amount of time/energy being wasted in this
incredible stupidity, and the ridiculous, petty-fogging amateur legalisms
which are being thrown around like the chicken-feed they are. This probably
means that he's paying the price for other people's actions, but since when
did life come with a 'fair' guarantee tag?

	Noel

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:44:03 -0700

>> Removal from office _is_ considered a punitive action

Noel, you have a very bad habit of replying to snippets out of context.
Personally I don't appreciate it, as the snippet above could lead
someone to believe that what I said above means something very different
than what it actually meant in the context of my post.

Trimming quotes in responses is reasonable (I've done it in this one),
and arguably not practiced often (or well) enough. Taking the most
inflammatory bits out of context is neither useful nor appropriate.

> He isn't being turfed out of his post (in a high-level sense); he

Yes, I fully understand that that is your argument. Some of us disagree.
Vive le difference. :)

> He simply wasn't polite or thoughtful enough to do so formally,
> instead of by just going catatonic on us.

Without any personal knowledge of his circumstances, I'm not prepared to
judge him.

> Because I'm ticked off at the amount of time/energy being wasted in
> this incredible stupidity, and the ridiculous, petty-fogging amateur
> legalisms which are being thrown around like the chicken-feed they
> are. 

This kind of ad hominem attack has no place in the IETF. You are
perfectly free to disagree with me, but that doesn't give you the right
to cast aspersions regarding the quality of, or motives behind my
contribution.

In fact, the _only_ reason I have spent so much time on this is that I
think it's an incredibly important question. Are we going to be an
organization that follows its own procedures, or are we going to treat
every written word as a guideline, which can be freely interpreted as
the occasion dictates?

Taking the latter course may be expedient, but IMO it has far-reaching
implications that will do far more harm to the organization than good.

Doug