Subject: Thick skinned chairs (Was Re: different calendar scales)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:00:23 -0500

Mark said on 11/04/2003 07:45:19 PM MST:
> > Or, better yet, get another, tougher skinned, working group
> > chair.
> 
> I would vote for that, I can not find ONE constructive comment
> or item you have posted in the last year. I can not find that
> you called conciseness on anything in the last year even when
> no one objected to a proposal.

I for one do not belive that being think skinned is a requirement of any 
IETF WG chair.  While WG discussions can sometimes become heated there 
should never be a need for barbs to be constantly shot at chairs.  Just as 
referees in boxing are not big muscle bound people in order to survive 
being in the ring and calling the match, chairs should not be expected to 
take any abuse just because their actions or opinions are not popuplar 
with one side or another. 

Im sure the ADs would agree with this assessment too.  While its helpful 
for chairs to be more engaged at times, there should never be a need for 
them to be thick skinned to in order to handle abuse from unruly or 
quarrelsome WG participants.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:10:59 -0500

Thanks.

[email-masked] 
Sent by: [email-masked]
11/10/2003 17:00

To
Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked], Ned Freed <[email-masked]>, Ted Hardie 
<[email-masked]>
Subject
Thick skinned chairs (Was Re: different calendar scales)

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:43:35 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> I for one do not belive that being think skinned is a requirement of 
> any IETF WG chair.  While WG discussions can sometimes become heated 
> there should never be a need for barbs to be constantly shot at 
> chairs.  Just as referees in boxing are not big muscle bound people in 
> order to survive being in the ring and calling the match, chairs 
> should not be expected to take any abuse just because their actions or 
> opinions are not popuplar with one side or another.   

I do strongly wish that Pat were more proactive on this list.

And I do agree with Bruce that she has been a great aid to this list.

>
> Im sure the ADs would agree with this assessment too.  While its 
> helpful for chairs to be more engaged at times, there should never be 
> a need for them to be thick skinned to in order to handle abuse from 
> unruly or quarrelsome WG participants.

I feel you also fall into that category. You have posted several items 
that had already
been fixed in CAP then tended to imply that no one was listening or 
responding to you.
And your mode seems to be an expectation that I respond to you each and 
every time you
ask a question even when it is a loaded or an out of date question. I 
nor this WG report
to Bruce as we are all volunteers on this list with our own jobs.

Although I do not like the way Mark formulates his comments, they tend
to be accurate. You do tend to post about already fixed items or change the
contents to make your post true AND unrelated to the topic.

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email-masked]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                               |   Cell: (208)520-4044

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:13:04 -0500

Ok.  That's fair and I agree.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:44:17 -0500

Doug chimed in on 11/10/2003 06:43:35 PM:
>                 You do tend to post about already fixed items or change 
the
> contents to make your post true AND unrelated to the topic.

Actually, when Mark has jumped in and said my replys were not relevant 
they have been as I have shown and as John confirmed the 1st time.

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:00:11 -0500

Doug replied on 11/10/2003 06:43:35 PM:
> I feel you also fall into that category. 

Thats your perogative.  However, dont confuse persistance on issues with 
abuse of chairs when they disagree with you.  I have NOT verbally abused 
or acosted the chairs like others here. 

>                                          You have posted several items 
> that had already

Both of us have been in some heated discussions here as most everyone can 
tell.  If the questions asked/rasied have been answered then it should 
just be a simple matter to refer to the proper WG thread where it was 
covered and resolved.  That is, if it was actually discussed and resolved. 
 If not, asking again is still a valid option.

Whenever I missed something and it was pointed out to me, I acknowledged 
that publically (ie: searching for busytime text in 10.12.1).  However 
that does not mean questions about it cannot be raised.  Especially since 
the design and text were the product of one person and not the WG at 
large.

> to Bruce as we are all volunteers on this list with our own jobs.

As Editor you should be able to answer questions about content of the 
draft, especially the intent of text.  If you are unable or unwilling then 
we should get a co-editor or replacement editor who can or is at least 
willing to try. 

Bruce

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:41:47 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> Thats your perogative.  However, dont confuse persistance on issues
> with abuse of chairs when they disagree with you.  I have NOT verbally
> abused or acosted the chairs like others here.

You post misleading posts about them, the history
of the topic, or conveniently neglect to post that there were
are majority that disagreed with you, how is that different
and not abuse?

Your posts continue to fail to be realistic with respect
with what was posted.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:38:39 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
> >                 You do tend to post about already fixed items or
> change the

Three people in the last few days have declared your posts as
not accurate with respect to the archives, history, or topic.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:46:32 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> draft, especially the intent of text.  If you are unable or unwilling 
> then we should get a co-editor or replacement editor who can or is at 
> least willing to try.   

Yes, and I do. I just will not answer the same question the 2nd...many 
times. Read
the archives first for the answers when you can not remember the reply.

--