Subject: Re: USEFOR last call, point of order

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 17:08:29 -0700 (PDT)

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

>I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
>was biased.  Can you explain?

I felt the same when I read it. It is interesting to see in writing that 
nobody who dished personal insults my way got censured, despite my being 
told otherwise while it was happening.

Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>If the group is closed, the biggest contributing factor I see for making 
>such a decision is lack of interest. Why do you assume that it has to be 
>caused by lack of interest?

You are the one assuming a lack of interest. People do not always leave 
this group because they lack interest in the outcome. I'd say that one 
very good reason is when they've seen a draft that they've worked very 
hard to get to say one thing go away because the editor decided he didn't 
like what it said.

>Nobody's threatened to appeal in any message I've seen on the list.

I recall having seen several such messages appear in the list in the past. 
I don't recall whether I said it explicitely myself, but I know I made my 
position clear about the process of discussing changes outside the list on 
a web system that cannot be accessed by anyone who refuses to accept bogus 
SSL certs.

I also recall at least one and perhaps more people saying "it doesn't 
matter anymore, I'll just appeal it when it gets to IETF." Expecting
them to stay around for half a decade just to say it again during this 
last-last-last-last call is silly.

Of course, you just might not have seen them. I think a statement such as 
"nobody has threatened to appeal" implies that you actually looked to see 
if they had.