Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul - as someone else that has had run-ins with the management of
PKIX  - what Anders commentary was relevant to was the
operational integrity of this WG and the people that either impugn that or
make it real.

The issue is not Steve, the issue is that there is no change in the
management of this WG and has been none for so long that claims that the
existing chairs are squatters are getting harder and harder to refute. In
fact without change through the management of the WG, there will come a time
when even the most stupefied idiot will see this as well and at that point
the rest of the WG starts to look like a bunch of skinned fish.

This WG like all other standards body WG's must espouse itself to the higher
vision of fair play, not in getting a select few protocols to elevated
status and that is the net-net of it.

As to intentional or unintentional flames, they happen and that's life.

As to what to do about the problem - I would propose that unless PKIX can
find new people willing to stand as its chair that it has become a
"permanent edifice", and that it needs to be shutdown and its projects
shuttled to other WG's for completion.

Todd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <phoffman@xxxxxxx>
To: <ietf-pkix@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: The IETF 56 - PKIX Agenda


>
> At 7:15 AM +0100 3/10/03, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> >You are absolutely right, this is childish, but you also do not have
> >the full background to this long-time feud.
>
> The background doesn't matter. If I find yourself about to write
> something childish, and I am an adult, it is my responsibility to not
> finish it.
>
> >I honestly regret the personal attack on Steve & Co which actually
> >was NOT even meant to reach a larger audience (you extended the
> >reply-list and I did not notice that).
>
> It is not clear that sending personal attacks to individuals is that
> much better than sending them to the whole mailing list. In the
> latter case, it wastes more people's time, but in the former case, it
> causes the person being attacked to wonder why he/she should be doing
> this.
>
> If we want effective official and unofficial leadership in the WG, we
> shouldn't be sending personal attacks to individuals or to the whole
> WG.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium