IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

"Pete Resnick" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5791D129989 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:51:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=qti.qualcomm.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ilpH5pTuiqj9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:51:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08963129985 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:51:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1487116300; x=1518652300; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0LPAHuyfXRlaS/Lu9LBh7tsHtBRmrPhcKssE/Gn1a0o=; b=EEXW79t8egpRz4wGr+yivwAo+MXnBUmXnOrUbvv4NAKVxN3LW3ugL3LT TdGO4RJFFsaSiTdcBOXQ4WmKHbkBodcuR8/vAgP3hv1+mDRZdjiMBs5fM S2VXoFtIIH9Lc+qQ3h+OYFDyaF+5efuvC7v4elMBJirVH+vbztAfwvsGM I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,163,1484035200"; d="scan'208";a="262868163"
Received: from unknown (HELO Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com) ([10.53.140.111]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 14 Feb 2017 15:51:39 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5800,7501,8439"; a="1290855054"
Received: from unknown (HELO [10.64.121.67]) ([10.64.121.67]) by Ironmsg04-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 14 Feb 2017 15:51:38 -0800
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:51:38 -0800
Message-ID: <7EAC6978-01B4-42A5-B949-A21AD9568190@qti.qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: <2F13B46F-AFE5-4E49-9724-3737781B4883@fugue.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com> <2F13B46F-AFE5-4E49-9724-3737781B4883@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"; markup="markdown"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5344)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/vidBJxUg5bf7HhmJhGIlOWpt1eE>
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:51:42 -0000

On 14 Feb 2017, at 15:18, Ted Lemon wrote:

>  My experience is that there are lots of things that get worked on in 
> working groups that I don't even have time to be aware of, and 99% of 
> the time the fact that I wasn't aware of them is not a problem at all. 
>   But 1% of the time it is, and last call is (hopefully) where I 
> become aware of that and say something.   Are you really calling this 
> abusive?

Nope. I simply disagreed with you that Last Call is a way to account for 
people who didn’t have time. The WG should have sought the expertise. 
Last Call ought not be relied upon to bring in experts who didn’t 
participate, due to lack of time or otherwise. The process can't depend 
on a single participant's time.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email