[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
hallam at gmail.com
Sat May 26 19:02:47 PDT 2012
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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.
Isn't recourse to all-caps an attempt to add emphasis that the writer
feels cannot be adequately captured in plaintext otherwise?
More information about the rfc-interest