Subject: Re: #1093 Email addresses - conclusion

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:06:09 -0700 (PDT)

Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Read carefully what Charles said:  the suggested note would indicate that
>the path identities *are* used for sending mail -- which is true -- not
>that they necessarily *should* be. 

And in which section of which document do you expect we will document the
fact that some people print out USENET messages and use them to line their 
birdcages? If we document all uses of USENET, we must document that one, 
too.

By pointing out that they ARE used that way, with no condemnation from us 
for that use, we've put the implicit stamp of approval on that use.

"Forrest J. Cavalier III" <forrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>If USEFOR gets a note to that effect, I am not sure what was
>the point of the poll.

The poll apparently has no point, since we'll be debating this same issue
all over again when it comes time to deal with USAGE. Even after the Chair 
has almost semi-determined that there is a consensus on the issue.

---

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:26:11 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> stop misrepresenting what I said.

Since I didn't quote you or say you said anything I am at a loss as to 
what this admonition refers to.

>When you tried to interpret my ruling on this subject as making the 
>question out of scope for USEAGE too, I said that you were wrong. 
>Repeatedly.

The poll you conducted on this matter said absolutely nothing about it 
being specific to USEPRO. AFTER the poll was over you tried claiming that 
it applied to only USEPRO, but you also said, as I recall, that it applied 
to 'the USEFOR document'. I'm working off your own poll where the 
consensus was clearly for 'no mention'.

Trying to limit the scope of a consensus after the consensus is determined 
(without any stated limits) is, well, I'm ignoring that attempt at 
twisting the result, not 'misinterpreting' what you said. I'm simply 
trying to live with the results of your own poll. 

It is STUPID to rehash this same debate again and again after such a clear 
result. Either Charles can justify a new mandate and the attempt at 
overriding an existing standard or he cannot. That he could not do it for 
USEPRO is clear indication that he cannot do it for USAGE.

If you want to waste the time again, fine. I'm happy to keep asking for a 
justification for this mandate, and I'm sure that Charles is happy to keep 
avoiding giving an answer. He's apparently quite happy trying to insert 
his pet mandates into our drafts hoping that one or more of them will 
stick. I'm not happy with that.

It:s time to stop this nonsense. We, as a group, did something unusual and 
came to a near unanimous consensus. Why do you refuse to accept that and 
think we need more debate on the same thing?

>It is IN scope for us to discuss this related to USEAGE , but USEAGE is 
>not presently on our schedule of things to discuss.

Tell this to Charles, who is posting proposed text for USAGE to initiate 
discussion.