[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat May 26 10:44:17 PDT 2012
On 5/26/12 10:31 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> Agreed. SO WHAT?
> Why are you insisting on retaining that structure? What is the *current*
> ***NECESSARY*** purpose?
I'll reply to your points in a separate message, but if we had a chair that
was running this like a working group, I'd ask them to ask you not to yell.
There's no need for this sort of ill-mannered speech, particularly when I'm
trying to bend over backwards to be polite.
Also: I won't be bullied by all-caps, so it's an ineffective approach.
More information about the rfc-interest