Subject: [hybi] A consensus-driven process

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 23:37:31 -0700

Dear HyBi WG,

You are probably aware that the IETF uses a consensus-driven 
process.  It is not unusual to see heated discussions, long threads 
or humorous comments on IETF mailing lists as IETF participants 
debate about their pet topic.

Exceptionally, and to avoid any misunderstanding, I suggest that 
participants refrain from posting any unprofessional comments to this 
mailing list.  It would be in the best interest of this working group 
if participants take a constructive approach and avoid any unpleasantness.

If you have any objections about adopting the above for a two-week 
cooling down period, please post them to this mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:45:02 -0700

Hello,

I posted a message about ten days ago about a two-week cooling down 
period.  I would like to thank those of you who have taken a 
constructive approach and avoided any unpleasant comments.

The IETF process allows for action to be taken if there are 
inappropriate postings to IETF mailing lists.  I encourage the 
various parties to talk to each other and resolve their 
issues.  Abusive postings can be reported to the HyBi WG 
Chairs.  Please explain in your report what you consider as 
inappropriate or abusive together with a recommendation on what action to take.

The above applies to everyone, including the WG Secretary. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary

---

From: "Shelby Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:31:10 -0400

I am trying to figure out if this was caused my me?

Perhaps I did restart the debate because I didn't realize the 2 weeks
hadn't elapse (remembered seeing that post but not making a mental note of
when it was and not having time to go find it again...should have Googled
I guess).  Should I stop posting for 4 more days?

As far as I remember, I have not intentionally issued any personal
admonitions.  Anything can be misinterpreted.  I have written some
comments about natural law (entropy, 2nd law of thermo, fundamental
theorems of computer science), with a claim that the enterprise control
model of security will die.  I apologize if that offended any one, it
wasn't intended to be an attack on any person or company in the enterprise
business.  And I am not pushing for the group to endorse a single
transport to try to force that outcome.  I am merely trying to help push
for factual discovery which i am starting to think will lean us towards
needing to support multiple transport options.  I don't want any xx% to
inpinge on the other xx%, but again I am not vested in the outcome because
I don't believe groups can harm me (because in the end I am happy with a
simple life even I lost everything else).

Please let me know in private or public, if I am being in any way
threatening to any person or company.

> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 02:58:47 -0700

Hi Shelby,
>I am trying to figure out if this was caused my me?

No, that was a message for the HyBi WG.  As some HyBi WG participants 
might not be familiar with the IETF process, it is better to explain 
how it works.

>I guess).  Should I stop posting for 4 more days?

I suggested a cooling down period ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg03047.html ) as 
there has been some comments which some participants might consider 
as inappropriate.  Debates about technical issues are fine as long as 
the topic falls within the HyBi WG Charter.  My previous message and 
this message should not be construed as restricting your posting rights.

>simple life even I lost everything else).

I'll comment on the above off-list.

>threatening to any person or company.

I haven't received any reports about that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
HyBi WG Secretary