[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']




Copy to this list
----- Forwarded by Pat R Egen/Egen Consulting/01 on 09/06/2003 22:02 -----
Pat R Egen

09/06/2003 22:02


        To:        Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        cc:        
        Subject:        Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']Link




Actually, Mr. Smith, the chair (me) is really waiting to see when people will get back to the issue at hand - getting CAP out the door.  I am also waiting for people to get back to being adults.  Occasionally, the chair has to step in and suggest we keep things above board.  It that is chastisment, then so be it.


Blasts of emails between two or three people is not the answer.  Making offensive comments about people also is not the answer, nor appropriate.  There is no one person at fault - there are many, including myself for not getting into the middle of some of these discussions and saying - stop the noise and get productive.  


However, that's not the way the IETF works.  The chair is there to call concensus, keep people cool, and push drafts.  We are not supposed to interfere or persuade people to move in any particular direction.  Therefore, I take great pains to not interfere with dialog..  However, I have to interfere when people write things that are abusive.  It is appropriate for the chair to step in when things get out of hand and when trying to reach concensus. It is also the responsibility of the chair to step in and say there may be an issue.  I know Bruce - and he does not lie.  He gets "enthusiastic" with his replies.  As for posting to the list, I happen to know he has been told by his management to reduce the amount of time he spends on items not pertaining to his work.  I know he tries to get on the list when he can - he is not supposed to be on this list at all - he still participates anyway because he too wants to see CAP out.  He's probably not pleased I am defending him.  With regards to his "job on the list"  - the only "official" job he has is method reviewer for ical, itip and imip.  He's not "officially" responsible for anything pertaining to CAP.  He's just trying to make sure it gets done.  When we have had meetings at IETF's and have been fortunate that Bruce could attend, he would help us get to an answer on issues.  He would hound us until we got there - and sometimes, it was not the direction he was heading - he would find out something should go in another direction.  Both Bob and I welcome Bruce's comments - they have usually been germaine.  However, in his defense, when someone just doesn't get it, it gets frustrating.  And when someone starts making comments like "you lie" on the list, then I have to step in and say "foul, below the belt, keep it nice."


So, that being said, can we please move on and get this done.  And again, name calling and mud slinging will not be condoned on the list.


Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

09/06/2003 19:37

       
       To:        ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx

       cc:        

       Subject:        [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']





Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Doug seemed confused on 09/04/2003 09:59:42 PM:
> > >  > Go re-read Bruces email and tell me if he has posted even ONE
> post
> > >  > that backs up (some in recent posts);
> > >  >
> > >  > (a)   ...I certainly dont recall any WG discussion on some of
> the bigger
> > >  >       issues ...
> > >
> > > Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved
> the
> > > issue of scoping on SEARCH?
> >
> > Go re-read my post (a) was not about SEARCH. It was was in response
> > to the text you sent. Your mis quoting me again.
>
> Hello!  McFly!!  Your (a) was a citation from one of my emails and
> your charge was I didnt describe "bigger issues" I was referring to.
>  I did that.  I listed 3 even (of which you only how include 1)!


I have seen you LIE on this list many times. At what point will the
chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?


You ether do not have a clue what he sent or your just lying.


You seem to think that just because you post that means consensus and it
does not.


You got upset because his name is on the footer of the doc and make
that a BIG issue. Are you just jealous?


You clam that one space and not two is a BIG issue. Do you know how to
use a computer and read? Get a life!


With the RECURRENCE-ID issue you and Robert have changed your mind
several times, yet claim
he is the one that is pig headed. Your so arrogant you will not even
admit that
you changed your mind or opinion and you still slam him with lies and
insults.
You started the RECURRENCE-ID issue by declaring that it was fixed
forever.
Now you say it changes with the set, you changed your mind to be mostly
compatible with the non-fixed model, admit it and stop slamming him or
anyone simply because you changed your mind to agree with them.


Your said:


> Of course, you say there is an answer but you wont provide it.  Typical.  You did that for all discussion over the past 4
> months.  "I dont have to prove anything." (loosely paraphrased).  Well in the IETF if you cant back up your statements then
> but the other folks can then yours dont hold much water...


Not only was that on a non-CAP topic. IT HAD NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO
WITH WHAT HE SENT OR CAP. Is your mail tool busted? Or are you?


I looked at your diff and never having seen CAP until -08, I figured
it out in a couple of minutes  - go hire someone competent if you can
figure it out.
This is a technical mailing list, not a list of people who subscribed
just to hear Bruce
demand other do his work.


> It was NOT resolved. Another issue you conveniently forgot for CAP-11 or to acknowledge lately.


Did you bother reading his post? He CAN NOT change such things until the
chair calls consensus. Because CAP IS going to ship soon (are you

now going to claim I made a last call?)

The chair chastised him for making changes, and you chastise him for not
making changes
some of which only you seem to want. How about thanking him for what
seems to be lots
of abuse from you and a couple of others that do not seem to know how to
act professionally.
Or at the very least post your item list (I do not think you have one).


Do you have an issue list? Or is there just one item on your issue list
that
is to slow down CAP until you can ship your product?


> I made a proposal and you did not disagree.  In fact noone did so I would say that we did reach concensus.
> Ill leave it to you to go get the final text from that discussion and include it in the next version of CAP-12.


You did not make a proposal at all. You declared you did not like
something. Have you read
the real proposals made by many that I read about on the list archive?


Yet you are the FIRST to scream when what you want is not in CAP.
Or when you want something removed from CAP.


There WAS NO CONSENSUS - who do you think you are to demand it change?
If you want to know the consensus - ask the chair and don't declare it
yourself.


I see you post nothing useful most of the time, you RARELY post
suggestions
or useful comments. Your only contribution to this list seems to be that
you have an opinion that you badly document.


You claimed that if you just had a diff then things would be wonderful.
Then after you had your own diff you scream because you have to
read it. Grow up.


> Of course not.  That would mean you'd have to acutally read the contents of posting of someone who wont back down
> from you on the list.  Given all those separate facts (that you didnt read) its not hard to see why your motives could be
> called into question.  You may not like it but thats just how I interpret the actions I see.


If I call you an idiot will you listen to me? If  I call you a moron
will you then help me?


If you are incapable of posting technical issues. Why do you bother
posting?


WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND
ABUSE OF OTHERS!! It takes for ever to read the archives and I am
finding that a HUGE percentage of Bruce's posts are inflated self ego
with
no technical contribution, but its lots of text.



> Bruce
> ===========================================================================
> Bruce Kahn                                INet:
> Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
> IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the

> FAX...

> Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <3F5A5328.A8975529@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:35:36 -0600
From: Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.9 sun4u)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0

To: "ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx" <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'
References: <OF957761B2.CCC0F26F-ON85256D98.0068FF88-85256D98.006B69EB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Doug seemed confused on 09/04/2003 09:59:42 PM:
> > >  > Go re-read Bruces email and tell me if he has posted even ONE
> post
> > >  > that backs up (some in recent posts);
> > >  >
> > >  > (a)   ...I certainly dont recall any WG discussion on some of
> the bigger
> > >  >       issues ...
> > >
> > > Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved
> the
> > > issue of scoping on SEARCH?
> >
> > Go re-read my post (a) was not about SEARCH. It was was in response
> > to the text you sent. Your mis quoting me again.
>
> Hello!  McFly!!  Your (a) was a citation from one of my emails and
> your charge was I didnt describe "bigger issues" I was referring to.
>  I did that.  I listed 3 even (of which you only how include 1)!


I have seen you LIE on this list many times. At what point will the
chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?


You ether do not have a clue what he sent or your just lying.


Are you getting paid to keep CAP from being published?
I mean you call everyone names that disagrees with you.


Your said:


> Of course, you say there is an answer but you wont provide it.  Typical.  You did that for all discussion over the past 4
> months.  "I dont have to prove anything." (loosely paraphrased).  Well in the IETF if you cant back up your statements then
> but the other folks can then yours dont hold much water...


Not only was that on a non-CAP topic - IT HAD NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO
WITH WHAT HE SENT
IN THE REPLY YOU ARE POSTING TO OR CAP.


> It was NOT resolved. Another issue you conveniently forgot for CAP-11 or to acknowledge lately.


Did you bother reading his post? He CAN NOT change such things until the
chair
calls consensus. CAP IS going to ship soon.



> I made a proposal and you did not disagree.  In fact noone did so I would say that we did reach concensus.
> Ill leave it to you to go get the final text from that discussion and include it in the next version of CAP-12.


Yet you are the FIRST to scream when what you want is not in CAP.
Or when you want something removed from CAP.


There WAS NO CONSENSUS - who do you think you are?


I see you post nothing useful, you RARELY post suggestions or useful
comments.


> Of course not.  That would mean you'd have to acutally read the contents of posting of someone who wont back down
> from you on the list.  Given all those separate facts (that you didnt read) its not hard to see why your motives could be
> called into question.  You may not like it but thats just how I interpret the actions I see.


If you are incapable of posting technical issues - why do you bother
posting.
If I call you an idiot will you listen to me?


WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND

ABUSE OF OTHERS!!


> Bruce
> ===========================================================================
> Bruce Kahn                                INet:
> Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
> IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the
> FAX...
> Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...