Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050816120148.04bece10@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:19:55 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1103] WGLC Add File-level Description field
In-Reply-To: <000001c5a203$7e2235e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C72BA7D@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<007701c5a1ee$f284b940$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050816022623.04c0bc00@mail.afrac.org>
	<000001c5a203$7e2235e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Randy,
Here is my understanding of the exchange over your "reasonable chance to 
respond given to active Members from 9am to 5pm". "Facts are sacred, 
comments are free": I would thank you to let me know if I misquoted or 
missed some facts.

My intent was only to expose our difference of point of view about the role 
of an IETF WG and the respect of the Internet users. I will attach your 
comments to this note if you provide some, so readers may get a whole 
report under a single URL I will probably use in appeals.

This being said, I consider the incident as closed.
jfc

-------

In the following exchange, the by far most list-active Chair of the WG-ltru 
documents that:

1. he builds his rough consensus evaluation during a WGLC on the lack of 
opposition from "active" participants
2. he seems to define an "active" participant as a person who will, over a 
short period of time during 9am-5pm be paid (working hours) to:
     - access his mail,
     - consider an issue described by a mark on a process under the active 
Chair's control,
     - respond to the WG mailing list without delay.
3. he does this "deliberately".
4. this is to give "everyone" a "reasonable" chance to respond, (not an 
equal opportunity to do it)
5. this "everyone" seems to exclude:
     - people not full time dedicated to respond within the hour to this WG 
mails
     - people needing to think over the response they want to make and 
possibly concert with others
     - people needing someone to translate the WG exchanges
     - people having difficulty accessing the referenced system's mark 
(url, login and password not documented in his mail)
     - Open Source people, who by nature volunteer off-working hours
     - etc.
     who are qualified of "Remulac", he will not worry about.

Some "active" participants have expressed their support to this practice.

NB. REMULAC: Network-aware applications can adjust their resource demands 
in response to changes in the availability of resources. The Remulac 
project (Resource Management under Language and Application Control) 
investigates the design, specification, implementation and evaluation of a 
software platform for network-aware applications. Such applications must be 
able to obtain information about the current status of the network 
resources. The Remulac project was carried by Carnegie Mellon as DARPA 
order J342.  This is probably not the Remulac which was alluded to, but ... 
it turns to be the main missing consideration of this WG: to deliver a 
language tag appropriate to network-aware applications' and users' resource 
(inluding language availability) management - whatever the language, the 
media and the mode.

At 11:59 16/08/2005, r&d afrac wrote:
>At 02:51 16/08/2005, r&d afrac wrote:
>>On 01:13 16/08/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>>>I'd like to give others time to speak on the proposal to mark #1103
>>>rejected, whether understood as adding a "FileDescription" field
>>>or a "#" convention for comments.  I'll give folks until 10:00 a.m.
>>>(California time) on Tuesday, August 16 2005 for further comment.
>>>That will give all our active participants a chance to comment on this,
>>>since at least some of the Europeans are probably asleep right now.
>>
>>I obviously hate this. But it must be said.
>>
>>After consensus by exhaustion: this is exclusion by the clock!  Difficult 
>>to better document an American (Californian?) oriented bias.  Asians, 
>>Middle-East, Africans, etc. are not even considered! As if Drafts were a 
>>competition between American and European positions (as suggested by a WG 
>>Draft author), instead of a common work striving towards the best 
>>solutions for all. This attitude also denotes a childish confusion 
>>between an IETF-WG and a wooden horse toy. USA had Minute Men, they seem 
>>now to have Minute Last Calls.
>>
>>I am not to judge this, so I will not call for the resignation of the 
>>co-Chair. But I would think his apologies to all the members of this WG 
>>would be appropriate to maintain a decent image of the IETF.
>>
>>Sorry.
>>jfc

On 03:38 16/08/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>I'll apologize to anyone on the list whose time zone lacks a 9am-5pm
>period overlapping the interval in question, since it was deliberately
>chosen to give everyone a reasonable chance to respond.  Let's see,
>where would that be?  Not the Americas, not Australia, not Asia, not
>Africa, not Europe, not even Antarctica.  Useful comments from
>Remulac don't appear to be forthcoming, so I won't worry about them.
>Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru