Subject: RE: [Ltru] QED

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:51:08 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of r&d afrac

> >I'm not feeding the trolls, no matter what they choose to call
themselves.
> 
> Dear Dot-Rooters,
> I told you the way you would be accepted ... QED.

*This* post to LTRU is a troll. I'll respond only because I think the
relative newcomer, F. Charles, should be given a chance to hear more
than Jefsey's evaluation of the members of this list.

If one goes into a situation expecting to be received poorly, they can
easily ensure they feel rejected, regardless of how others perceived
them. Don't jump to conclusions about others' perceptions. 

F. Charles came on the list asking if the syntax for tags could be
extended to allow comments of length > 8 and including "." within
subtags. That suggestion was rejected with reasons -- the need to
maintain backward compatibility -- clearly stated. At that point, I
don't think he was considered by anyone to be a troll. 

When the response offered was ignored, and the request was repeated
without providing substantive justification for overriding back-compat
concerns and the risks that would entail, that begins to take the
appearance of a troll. 
If I go into a group asking them to change a fundamental principle
underlying their work such as back-compat, I should expect that I will
need to work hard to clearly communicate a strong case for that change,
and that at any point I might reasonably be perceived as a nuisance.
That is a risk I must be prepared for, and if people in that group do
get annoyed with me, I need to accept that the response was predictable
from my behaviour. Now, I don't know that anyone got annoyed with F.
Charles, but when he disregarded one of this group's fundamental
principles -- the need to maintain backwards compatibility with existing
implementations, he should have been prepared for *any* response that
might ensue. (Perhaps he wasn't aware he was attacking such a
fundamental principle held by the group; but knowing that it was such
should account for whatever reaction he might have perceived.)

That exchange was not what led to Addison's reference to trolls,
however. It was this thread related to Jefsey's suggestion that a
re-evaluation of the charter for this group is necessary. As a result of
his repeated behaviour on this list -- useful contributions on a few
occasions, but far more often impractical suggestions, obstruction or
insult -- *his* posts are perceived by many to be trolls. As a result, a
post from an unknown contributor supporting one of Jefsey's trolling
posts is prone to be classified as a troll merely by association. In
simple terms, F. Charles has not been part of this list long enough for
any one to have pigeon-holed him as a troll; it is Jefsey they are
reacting to.

I invite F. Charles to dialog further with this group, but in doing so
to recognize that they have been working together for a long time, and
are very nearly at the completion of a major milestone, meaning that any
significant change is considered extremely costly, and proposals to make
radical changes to requirements that have been considered fundamental
from the outset are not going to be received well.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 09:53:35 -0700 (PDT)

I am an assistant of Prof. F. Charles. I called him. He will respond in
detail to you when back from Africa early next week. He told me to say he
believed we had unsubscribed your list, and that he has not read the mail
from Mr. Morfin but was statisfied by the Monday meeting for x-tags and he
starts signing international testing agreements. He asks if you will be in
Paris in August.
Respectfully.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:23:52 +0200

At 17:51 22/06/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
>relative newcomer, F. Charles, should be given a chance to hear more than 
>Jefsey's evaluation of the members of this list.

Hi! Peter,
I am afraid you are trolling yourself this time. We are just transparent.

>re-evaluation of the charter for this group is necessary.

??? We only wait for a common reading of the Charter and of its thorny 
points, as announced by Randy. We do not think the Draft concepts follow 
the Charter. The recent responses over x-tags show it.

>As a result of his repeated behaviour on this list -- useful contributions 
>on a few occasions, but far more often impractical suggestions, 
>obstruction or insult ...

I do not really care as I have no dispute with you (except when you talk of 
"end users") but can you please quote the URL of this "insult" ?

All the best.
jfc

PS. All of you who happen to be in Paris send me a mail. BTW work for ISOC 
France to host a nice evening (should be on Aug. 4th).

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:49:55 -0700

Hi -

> From: "r&d afrac" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:23 PM
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] QED
...
> the Charter. The recent responses over x-tags show it.

As I wrote nearly two months ago:
 I do wish you would not twist my words.  I don't know whether the problem is
 in your reading, your understanding, or your writing.  I suggest you engage the
 services of someone fluent in technical French and English.  I know that many
 such people exist.

 To be perfectly clear:
   - the charter is not up for debate until we complete our work
   - the charter imposes specific requirements on what we deliver
   - we need to ensure that what we produces addresses all the
     mandatory requirements imposed by our charter

If you read anything more into my use of the phrase "thorny questions" on
April 7, you are mistaken.  You have been corrected on this point repeatedly,
but have proven incorrigible.

...
> "end users") but can you please quote the URL of this "insult" ?
...

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg02372.html
is a recent example of what I would consider an insulting post.

Randy, ltru co-chair

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:13:59 +0200

> > the Charter. The recent responses over x-tags show it.

Dear Randy,
I thank you for your response.

>  services of someone fluent in technical French and English.  I know that 

I consider this as insulting to you (as well as discriminatory for me, but 
I am used to).

I always said I speak Franglish and read commonly clear English. You chair 
an IETF WG. IETF is open to everyone on an equal opportunity basis without 
discrimination of origin, sex, language, beliefs, money, etc. Your role is 
to make sure I understand. Because I am dedicating time and efforts to 
offer you a prototype of the standard IETF international user.

If I do not understand, nor the money to get your texts explained to me by 
experts, it is likely that millions of people around the world will not. I 
am not here to embarrass you, but to help you producing an internationally 
useful deliverable. A free common readability, interest, acceptability QA. 
If you want your words not to be twisted (what they are not, cf. below) 
make sure I cannot twist them. Because millions will twist them otherwise.

>    - the charter is not up for debate until we complete our work

This is what I understand, and this is what I wait for.

>    - the charter imposes specific requirements on what we deliver

True. And I think that some of these requirements cannot be delivered with 
the current doctrine of the draft. The most obvious one is its simplicity 
and clarity. It is likely that a 140000 characters text is more complex 
than a 25000 one. I looked very carefully (but I may have missed them?) for 
an Internet context definition of the terms used in the document such as 
"language", "script", "region", "variant" detailing their underlying concepts.

The charter says "It is also expected to provide mechanisms to support the 
evolution of the underlying ISO standards": each time I have alluded to 
this consistency, to this evolution, to its rules, to its expected near 
terms achievements, etc. this has been labeled as "out of context", etc. 
etc. All of them are ruled by ISO 11179 you  also ruled as out of context.

>      mandatory requirements imposed by our charter

Right. This is why I patiently wait for this group to achieve its current 
work, then identifies the mandatory requirements imposed by the charter, 
then verifies if these requirements are satisfied. I only suggest that we 
could have saved a lot of time in identifying the mandatory requirements 
first, because the issue is complex and it is unlikely that anyone can come 
up with a good response without this preparatory identification.

This is why myself, before venturing in writing a Draft, I want to wait for 
the outcomes of this common identification. To be surer I read it correctly.

>but have proven incorrigible.

I do not read anything more, and I fully agree with your use of the term 
"thorny".

You are so wary because I just see the proposed draft cannot fly in the 
real world, that you imagine too much. Please stop inventing a supposed 
second, third or whatever degree in my mails. When I read something in RFCs 
and in the Charter about common sense issues and I see this WG 
painstakingly wanting to standardise a patch, what do you want me to do? To 
be disloyal? to keep real world considerations outside of the WG as most 
do? To leave you produce another "IDN solution"?

I certainly have no problem with that!

>is a recent example of what I would consider an insulting post.

I read and reread and reread that text to try to find what can be insulting 
in a meeting report, which lists decisions taken by an independent  team. 
They illustrate the way an internet experimented and 
multinational/multilingual may receive your positions.

NB1. In reading and rereading I found a self correcting typo, I apologise 
for (is this the insult?). Addison's "troll" had been read as "droll". I 
corrected that, told them that Addison mail did _not_ change his text which 
was what was only to be considered, and thanked them to accept it.

NB2. the question was to Peter.

Otherwise, I invited you all for a drink. I know this is a huge risk of 
bias for the work of this WG. But I do not think it is insulting?

I just wait for the announced day this WG will start working on the 
identification of its Charter requirements.
jfc