Re: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' toBCP (draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)

["Tom.Petch" <sisyphus at dial.pipex.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed at mrochek.com>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at jck.com>; <iesg at ietf.org>; "Robert Elz"
<kre at munnari.OZ.AU>; <ietf at ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' toBCP
(draft-carpenter-rescind-3683)


> My head is spinning.
>
> The draft (ignoring 3683) restores 2418

<rant>
No, it does not.  I said so, others said so, and you do not get it.  You are
changing 2418; you may consider the changes trivial and of no consequence,
others are concerned that they may turn out not to be (as happened with
Wasserman).

Previously, I commented on the clarifying clause about warnings off-list; I see
that clause as useful, you see it as unnecessary.  It is a change.

'Progress' has become 'process'; this suggests that if a WG 's process consists
of going round in circles (quite common, actuallly) and I disrupt that in order
to get some progress, then I should be banned, under Carpenter or Wasserman (but
not under 2418).  Ok, this is not so serious but it is a change.

More seriously, Carpenter stops ADs from imposing 7-day suspensions; only Chairs
can do that; why is irrelevant, Carpenter makes changes, Carpenter does not
restore.

etc etc
</rant>

So I am absolutely with kre and Ned Freed on this; originator of last call
please note.

Tom Petch.

> and adds the extra powers
> created by 3934. I've been told by the author of 3934 that removing
> the powers created by 2418 was not intended (even though there is
> no other way to read the words in 3934). So I think the question on
> the table is: does the community want the union of the powers created
> by 2418 and 3934?
>
> I can certainly agree that 4633, for its lifetime, seems to grant
> at least these powers. But of course if we go that way, this discussion
> will be back again in a year.
>
>      Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf