[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 19:40:36 PDT 2012
if you are offended by my use of caps, i apologize. in case i forget, and since you're fond of filters, feel free to run my posts through an ee-cummings filter in the future.
On May 26, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand 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.
> Joe Hildebrand
More information about the rfc-interest