From: Bruce Lilly (blilly@erols.com)
Date: Fri May 14 2004 - 08:10:35 CDT
Charles Lindsey wrote:
>In <409BF5DD.6030103@erols.com> Bruce Lilly <blilly@erols.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>>>In precisely what way does "Re:" identify the topic of a message which
>>>>has nothing to do with that particular sequence of characters?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It indicates that the topic of the message is a continuing discussion of
>>>the matters indicated by the words following that "Re: ".
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>IOW, it does not identify the topic of the message at all.
>>
>>
>
>Eh? How do you get that? That is precisely the topic of *any* followup
>message assuming that the user does not change it to something completely
>different.
>
>
You are claiming that the topic of *any* and *every* followup message is a
discussion of the string "Re:"?!?
>>>From you message regarding document names more than a year ago:
>>
>>
>
>It looks more like a message from Henry Spencer to me.
>
>
>
>>>In <Pine.BSI.3.91.1030501173804.18645K-100000@spsystems.net> Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Assuming we go with the chairs' scheme for the four-way split -- which, as
>>>>>noted before, I think is advisable -- a thought on possible names:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> #1 USEFOR format
>>>>> #2 USEPRO protocols
>>>>> #3 USEAGE "Good Netkeeping"
>>>>> #4 USEINT internationalization
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>(Yes, #3's name is not spelled the same way as the English word "usage".
>>>>>So what? None of these names are English words.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Yes, that is why I spelt it the "funny way" (also because, it turns out,
>>>"USAGE" breaks my cross-referencing system).
>>>
>>>
The message header clearly contains:
To: usenet-format@landfield.com
From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
That is not "a message from Henry Spencer to" any individual. It is a message
from you to this WG mailing list.
>So What? There was a proposal to create 4 documents
>
No, not a mere "proposal", but direction from the co-chairs following
discussion with
the Area Director.
>, and maybe even to
>label them in a certain way (and note also that the 2nd one was about
>"protocols").
>
The topic of the second document is network operations, which certainly
involves network protocols.
>So there may yet exist those 4 documents with those 4 names.
>So What?
>
>
Discussion of the "Re" hack clearly belongs in document #3 only; it is not
involved in syntax or semantics (as we have agreed last Spring), it is
not involved
in network operations or protocols (as we have agreed last Summer), and
it is
certainly not an internationalization issue (indeed is is a linguistic
fascism
issue, as we have agreed recently).
>THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" IS NOT THE DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN
>AS #3.
>
>
Right. SO DISCUSSION OF "Re" DOES NOT BELONG IN THE DOCUMENT
CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR". (My caps lock key also works, so what?)
>THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE THE
>DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN AS #3.
>
>
Irrelevant.
>THE DOCUMENT CURRENTLY KNOWN AS "USEFOR" IS NOT INTENDED TO BE THE
>DOCUMENT TO BE KNOWN AS #3.
>
>
So discussion of "Re" is out of place there.
>IF and WHEN we create separate documents #1 and #2
>
The "IF" and "WHEN" have been directed by the WG co-chairs. It was supposed
to happen a year ago. Your refusal to produce them is holding up progress.
>THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. Hence the purpose of this current draft is
>exactly as defined by the paragraph I have quoted above. Hence the current
>document is NOT "A purely syntax and semantics document". So please can we
>stop this nonsense and get on with the matter in hand.
>
>
Indeed let's stop the nonsense and get on with the matter in hand, which
is to produce
two Standards Track documents as outlined by the WG co-chairs well over
a year ago.
>>And from the co-chair's message "The plan of action", also more than a
>>year ago, describing the first of those, viz. USEFOR:
>>
>>
>
>Yes, so you keep saying. That plan was proposed by our Chairs, but never
>agreed by the WG (there was a clear consensus to proceed with #3 and #4 at
>the proper time, but no consensus as regards #1 and #2).
>
The direction given by the co-chairs was in fact direction, not a mere
proposal, And
your claim about lack of agreement is nonsense; as can be seen from the
text quoted
above in Henry Spencer's message as well as in the publicly available WG
mailing
list archives. There were some minor reservations, but general
agreement to proceed
per the direction given by our co-chairs.
> That is a matter
>which we shall have to consider just as soon as we have resolved the
>technical issues at present under discussion
>
"Re" is not an issue affecting either syntax/semantics or network
operations. It is
a tactic being used by you to delay progress. The syntax/semantics
issue was
settled last Spring, and per our chair's ruling, the protocol issue
boiled down to
whether or not there was any issue that affected some network operation,
i.e.
something other than display.
That was early last Summer, and no such issue was produced by any WG member.
Then in the Autumn, you came out with Draft 12 containing the objectionable
wording regarding "Re", which is counter to the WG discussions last
Spring and
Summer as presided over by the WG chair. That wording has been objected
to by
several WG members. Rather than remove that objectionable wording which is
inconsistent with the WG discussions on the matter held prior to the
release of
that version of the draft, you have wasted everybody's time trying to
cast the same
damned wording as a "compromise" and as "rough consensus" when it is
neither --
is is objectionable because it has no relation to the subject matter of
the Standards
Track documents which we are tasked to produce.
It might be appropriate for document #3, but as you have shouted, we are not
now working on that document.
>, because there is no way that
>I am going to be changing the technical content of the document at the
>same time as I am trying to split it into two.
>
>
More excuses to delay progress. You have claimed that the split was a
simple
matter of extracting section 8; that has been shown to be a lie. Now
you give
more excuses. We're over a year behind schedule; we have no drafts for
either
of the Standards Track documents that we're supposed to be producing, either
as working documents for WG use or as public Internet Drafts. It's time
to stop
procrastinating and produce the drafts that we are supposed to produce,
without
the objectionable language which is counter to WG discussion (you may move
that language to a draft for document #3 for future discussion).
>Maybe we shall decide to split it into #1 and #2 and maybe we won't.
>
The Area Director and the Chairs have made that decision. The Document
Editor
has failed to follow through with implementation, and continues to fail to
produce wording which is consistent with WG discussions. He has failed to
make current working documents available to WG members for perusal, but
insists that wording be agreed to sight unseen. If that does not change
PDQ,
it will be time to call for a new Document Editor (I recall that there
was at
least one other individual willing to take on that role).
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################
#####
#####
#####
#################################################################
#################################################################
#################################################################