Subject: Re: Newsgroup names #1021

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>John, how much does it take to make you see that the door you're trying to 
>bash in is already open?

Your response is condescending and insulting.

>The fact that this issue made it onto the ticket system without the list 
>being notified is an error;

That's right. And that is the first time I've seen you say that. So your
statement above about "how much does it take" is insulting. It implies 
you've been saying this all along and I've just not "gotten it".

>it is the list that is the WG.

Which list? The trouble ticket list, or this group? Since issues are being
raised on the trouble ticket list and discussion is taking place there,
I have to assume you mean "the trouble ticket list".

>Because this system is run as a voluntary gift to the IETF by Randy Bush, 
>and he thinks the entire idea of trusting "root certificates" just because 
>they got shipped with your browser is ludicrous.
>I can see his point.

We aren't talking about trusting root certificates, we are talking about
accepting SSL certificates that are self-certified for a service that has
NO need for certs in the first place. That begs the question of why you
think it is appropriate to run an off-WG discussion list just because it
was a gift. 

>Take it up with Randy. I wish you luck.

No, I take it up with YOU because YOU are the Chair of this WG and YOU are 
responsible for the creation and use of the off-WG discussion forum where 
"off-list" issues are being raised and discussed. Randy has nothing to do 
with this; he's not the one forcing these invalid certs down our throats 
if we want to participate in the discussion of issues relevant to this WG.
You are.

>John, I'll be impolite for once.

You've already been impolite. Don't pretend otherwise.

>This group has demonstrated conclusively that just having discussions on 
>the list does not lead to the group finishing.

Irrelevant. Either this working group is the USEFOR working group or it is 
not. IETF says it is, but the chair of this group is running another 
discussion forum that is handling USEFOR issues, so there is some 
question.

>A trouble ticket system is one means of helping a group close.

Like I already said, if it were just "a trouble ticket system" where you 
were creating and even publishing a list of problem points that needed to 
be discussed, that's fine. But this is NOT just "a trouble ticket system", 
it is a full-blown alternate discussion forum where issues are being taken 
directly without coming through here first. 

That is not acceptable. "We cannot finish in this group" is not an excuse.

>Your behaviour is part of the reason the group is not finishing.

Not agreeing with the "consensus" when the consensus changes from week to
week is hardly the cause of the problem.

>You didn't get the point that "6." referred to section 6 in the document, 
>did you?

Of course I understood that "6" referred to section 6 of a document. Stop 
being insulting. YOU didn't get the point that "No discussion, ticket 
seems clear" is demonstrating that the "trouble ticket system" is being 
used to bypass the discussion that IS taking place in THIS group. 

>Feel free to leave, John.

I'll not hold my breath waiting for you to censur yourself like you did 
Bruce. This WG is working on more than one standard, both literally and 
figuratively.