RE: Richard, you shouldn't have (was Apology is called for)

["Spencer Dawkins" <Spencer.Dawkins.sdawkins@nt.com>]

Jeff, think of it as a correction of factual error on a list that is
supposed to have SOME technical content.

Th alternative is to have factual errors stand, as long as they demean the
right people.

I note that in
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-odell-code-of-conduct-02.txt,
the following text appears:

   (5c) An IETF Member apologizes appropriately in private or in public
      for any offense caused to other members.

I know it's only an Internet-Draft, but does that make it WRONG?

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu [SMTP:jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 14, 1998 8:33 AM
> To:	ietf@ietf.org; jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM
> Cc:	Iana@iana.org; List@giaw.org; comments@iana.org;
> discussion-draft@giaw.org; jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject:	Re: Richard, you shouldn't have (was Apology is called for)
> 
>     From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> 
>     Rochard [sic - JNC] should NOT have made this apology. Dave Crocker
>     doesn't deserve one. He is a believer in excluding the Internet
>     User/Stakeholder. That gTLD-MoU is prime proof of that as he was one
> of
>     its prime drafters and a member of it's leadership.
> 
> Ahem. I'm hardly a giant fan of Dave, as many (including he) will be happy
> to
> attest, and I've had some pretty amazing run-ins with him over the years.
> 
> Even *I* find your statement ludicrous and repellent.
> 
> Dave may be wrong sometimes, but I've never found his motivations to be
> base;
> indeed, in our big disagreement over CIDR, it was precisely his concern
> for
> "the Internet User/Stakeholder" that was driving it.
> 
> Your charge above is just one more example of what I've alluded to in a
> previous post - the content of your posts is so worthless that they are
> best
> ignored. (I only made an exception to my own suggestion in this case
> because
> of your personal attack on Dave.)
> 
> 	Noel