Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Moderation in all things

From: camerost at exchange.microsoft.com (Cameron Stillion)
Date: Tue Sep 14 10:58:02 2004

As an interim co-chair and (therefore) default moderator of this list, I
want to thank Nathaniel for his reminder to all of us to keep our
discussion professional and kind.

When we invented the term "calsify", I volunteered to be a co-chair of
this working group, and our initial charter was agreed upon in our small
group to be this:

Simplify the existing iCal proposed standard (remove only - do not add)
to solve the confusion and interoperability headaches, with the ultimate
goal of bringing this new "simplified" iCal (eCal/sCal/...) to the state
of actual INTERNET STANDARD.

So far, our discussion has been focused on aspects of the spec which are
unclear and which are in need of simplification/clarification.  We have
identified many aspects which may need to be cut from the standard, and
many which may need to be less rigid, or more rigid.  We have also
identified good points for additions to a future standard, but which we
will not be pursuing in the context of this working group.  I fully
expect such ideas to spring from the current state of things.  

These have been by and large excellent, professional, and courteous
discussions.  LET'S KEEP IT THAT WAY.

Our ability to deliver on bringing calendaring to the internet with the
ubiquity of e-mail will largely depend on our ability to cooperate,
reason, and function as a group.  While opinions which runs contrary
about technical issues, schemas, functionality, scenarios, etc. are very
welcome - and will ultimately lead to a better standard... Opinions
which are aggressive or demeaning are NOT WELCOME, regardless of
intention.

cameron

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Nathaniel
Borenstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:28 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-calsify] sending new RRULE/RDATES should not be
allowed

On Sep 13, 2004, at 5:14 PM, Doug Royer wrote:

> That make no sense at all.

If one can't make sense of something, it is imprudent to assume that's
necessarily because it makes no sense.  The problem can be on either
end.

> At his point I am going to consider your posts as trolling.
>
> Does any one (else) have any input on this topic?

Yes, I do.  While I have no opinion either way about the details of this
disagreement, I want to say that I consider it completely unacceptable
to dismiss someone else's politely-expressed opinions with a pejorative
-- especially one that seems to make no sense in context.  
What on earth would Tom [Ramsdell] be "trolling" for?  Arguments for the
sake of arguments?

On Sep 13, 2004, at 8:08 PM, Mark Swanson wrote:

> I would like to know what the process is for moving forward on issues 
> like this.... (Surely not the same process as the previous 
> ietf-calendar mailing
> list?)

I think the very first deliverable of this list, which we/I have
neglected so far, should be a proposed charter for a new working group. 
  Once that is established, we will get working group chairs, who will
be responsible for such disputatious-issue resolution.  Until then, I
don't really expect controversial issues to be *resolved*, and I see the
purpose of the current preliminary discussion as exploring the issues
and discussing which ones we should *try* to resolve -- which,
coincidentally, involves basically the same questions as drafting a
charter.

On Sep 13, 2004, at 8:20 PM, Doug Royer wrote:

> So far only Robert seem to think that the method he proposes is 
> documented, standardized, or compatible with many others.

The fact that only one person (or a few) speaks out about either side of
an issue does NOT mean that whoever is most aggressive gets to declare a
consensus.  For my part, I haven't expressed an opinion because I don't
yet consider myself well-informed enough to have one, and was looking
forward to clarification, explanation, and persuasion.  
If I had to take sides in the absence of these, I would be 
instinctively inclined to take the side that's being most polite.   My 
preference, however, would be to see the issues sufficiently well
thought-out and clearly spelled-out that I could confidently reach my
own conclusion.

More philosophically, this attitude isn't just because I hate conflict
(although I do).  It's because I believe that when issues are really
well explored, they are much less likely to end up in flat-out
disagreements that *require* voting.  Although I didn't participate in
much of the long history of the calsch group, the resulting documents
certainly look to me like too many arguments were somehow settled before
they were well-enough understood, perhaps by a "tyranny of the loudest."
I would really like to make sure that doesn't happen here.

> He did the same thing on the other mailing list and caused months of 
> delay.

If you are conjecturing that delay is his motive, I can tell you, as his
coworker, that this is just incorrect.  So either one of you is simply
flat-out wrong -- in which case you should eventually be able to
persuade people like me -- or there are subtleties that are not being
properly addressed or elucidated in this discussion.

> Fortunately this mailing list is not "how can it be done", its "how do

> people do it".

This shows again why we need a clear charter -- for my part, I don't
think *either* of those characterize our goal very well, but I'm closer
to the former than the latter.

> I do not think that the issue is stalled. I think that it is fairly 
> clear

The debate is *obviously* stalled, however clear the issues may be to
you -- "stalled" and "clear to you" are not antonyms.

On Sep 14, 2004, at 10:45 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> You just are too stubborn to admit it.

Sigh.  Can we please try to keep this list free of ad hominem attacks on
*both* sides?  -- Nathaniel

_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify