[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at chromium.org
Fri Mar 27 15:54:56 PDT 2020


On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 9:45 AM Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> ...
> Really? So basically outgoing IESG members get to throw “work bombs” on
> the incoming IESG and the rest of us?
>
>
> Huh? There is a reason there are two outgoing IESG members writing this.
>
> 2) Mirja and I picked up this task exactly because we were outgoing and
> did not want this to be seen as pushed by the IESG on the community.
>
>
> Then you needed to wait until you were out of office, IMHO.
>
> Above, you point out that this is being written because of your context as
> IESG members. You can’t (IMO) believably claim that and then claim this is
> individual at the same time.
>

I feel like this part of the discussion is crossing the boundaries set in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp54#section-2 into personal attacks. Mirja
and Suresh wrote this draft trying to improve how the IETF works based on
their own experiences, and while they might or might not be proposing the
right solutions or have supported their proposal well enough to convince
everyone, they're not throwing bombs or otherwise behaving inappropriately.

It might be useful to let this sit for some cooldown period (for example
while Suresh reads a bunch of RFCs) before inflaming things more.

Thanks,
Jeffrey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200327/7a084b50/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list