Subject: Re: #1093 Email addresses - conclusion

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:59:54 -0700 (PDT)

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I can live with it if the understanding is that the topic can be covered
>in USEAGE. 

Of course you can "live with it" if you get another chance to hold the
same argument all over again after a clear consensus contrary to your
position.

Nothing in the poll limited itself to USEPRO. That's how I voted on it;
I assume that that is how everyone else voted on it, too, since any 
specificity would certainly warrant at least a mention. 

This is ridiculous. Either we think there is "no requirement" or we don't.
A consensus that changes from day to day simply isn't a consensus.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:44:21 +0200

John,

The poll-maker has said what the intent was - to cover USEPRO only.
Nobody has indicated that they wish to change their opinion based on this 
clarifiation.

NOW SHUT UP.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:09:14 -0700 (PDT)

> The poll-maker has said what the intent was - to cover USEPRO only.

The poll-maker did not say this until after the poll was over.  Voting
requires a clear statement on what is being voted on, BEFORE the votes are
cast. "You voted for BLUE but I meant to say RED, so I'll count your vote
as a vote for RED" is not acceptable. This vote was not specific to 
USEPRO. To say now that it was is Redding the Blue.

The poll-maker has already claimed that this poll result covers USEFOR.  
("As WG chair, I conclude that it's possible that the working group can
come to consensus on excluding these requirements from the USEFOR standard
document." "If Frank, Charles and Richard can live with a group consensus
that the USEFOR document is to go forward without any requirement to
support these email addresses, I can declare this issue closed - and
possibly reopen the issue when it's time to update USEAGE.") I'll remind
the chair that USAGE is just as much a USEFOR document as is USEPRO.

We've already covered the concept of a consensus that changes depending on 
the intended reader. What is appropriate to require from an admin in the 
document where we tell him what is required is just as appropriate for the 
document where we tell everyone else what to expect from the admin. 

> Nobody has indicated that they wish to change their opinion based on this 

You really expect someone to say "oh, well, now that I know this covers
just USEPRO (or was it USEFOR?) I'll say that there should be a mandate in
USEPRO..."? That's ridiculous. I suspect that those who said "no
requirement" actually meant it, and they probably didn't mean "no
requirement today, but require it next month." I certainly didn't mean 
that.
 
> NOW SHUT UP.

Thanks for your kind words and careful consideration. And your careful use
of a language you admit is not your main one. You do not accept this kind
of language from other participants, but the Chair is free to amend the 
rules. Has this one been amended permanently?

It's either a consensus or it is not. The issue is either closed or it is
not. If you are not going to treat it as a consensus, then do not waste
our time with a poll about it. Certainly do not waste our time telling us 
that you didn't write what you intended but you'll interpret things as if 
you had anyway.

I swear, you've got as close to a unanimous consensus about an issue as 
I've ever seen this group come to over anything that has been debated, and
you're ready to throw it away because the questions didn't say what you 
wanted them to. You've even got ME clearly compromising over something I 
think ought to be a mandate, but even with this miracle it's not good 
enough.