Re: [ifwp] Re: Postel's view of Internet users

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick@namesecure.com>]

On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Mikki Barry wrote:
> 
> > I have been working on a solution.  I attended the Reston IFWP conference, the 
> > Geneva IFWP conference, have read the mail from various lists, and have been 
> > working rather consistantly on a solution.  But this proposal ignores all the 
> > work that we have already done to achieve consensus.
> 
> If you truly feel that way then *IGNORE* the proposal 

Done. Actually, I don't know that ignore is the right word, just that I
won't accept it as the basis for discussion. 

> and draft your own proposal that meets your requirements. But don't
> waste everybody's time and yours by criticizing Postel and drawing
> everybody's attention to his work. 

Michael, it is inappropriate to do so right now. There are a lot, and I
mean a lot of very fundemental issues to be resolved.

> > I do not feel Postel's 
> > incorporates the consensus of the prior meetings, or the mailing list 
> > discussions, and will not incorporate the consensus achieved at the future 
> > meetings.  For this reason, I feel that it should be scrapped and we should 
> > start from what we already have.
> 
> I've got news for you. You have no right to scrap Postel's proposal nor
> does anyone else. Postel has as much right to speak and to issue proposala
> as anyone else. You have no right to suppress his opinions or to suppress
> his views of how to incorporate the meeting consensus points into a
> working organization. That's not how you build consensus.

No one is attempting to suppress them Michael. The problem is that people
such as yourself are attempting to offer such proposals some sort of
elevated status over the proposals of others. 

> > As for incorporation of consensus, I'll be glad to ask why that hasn't
> > occurred. 
> 
> This is not a question of fact but a posturing of your own personal
> opinion. Postel has already stated that he modified his proposal based on
> the outcome of the Geneva meeting. He is under no obligation to explain
> why he did not incorporate some points of consensus in a manner which you
> can clearly understand. 

He is under no obligation? He wants his draft by-laws to be taken
seriously, don't you think? Wouldn't that incur some obligation if we are
obstensibly operating in an open, transparent and representitive fashion?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell				         (800) 299-1288 v
			   Systems Administrator	 (925) 377-1414 f
	                         NameSecure		     
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/