Thanks Martin, > calling them one to their face isn't going to help. > Note that I didn't call anyone a sock-puppet (I explicitly denied doing so). From the wording though, I can see how you might have thought I'd implied it: "Not to say that you are one, but it's something that I'm reminded of each time I come across these types of situations." - Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA. On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2013 11:32 AM, "Tao Effect" <contact@taoeffect.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:16 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, if we're spreading potentially dangerous misinformation, let's fix that. Can you identify which internet draft has said information so we can fix it? > > > > Am I limited to internet drafts? I haven't been following the ones on HTTP/2.0. Like most people, I'm dazzled by catchy subject titles. > > Internet drafts (at least the ones with -ietf- in them) attempt to capture the current consensus of the writing group, and by extension, the IETF. They are imperfect, but they really are much better at tracking state than mailing lists. > > I encourage you to stay and help us figure this out. Please remember to respect the fact that others do want what is best, and that disagreements generally only arise from small differences in view on what a good outcome looks like and what the best approach in achieving that outcome might be. Even if you think someone is a sock puppet (and I certainly don't know of anyone who I'd apply that label to here), calling them one to their face isn't going to help. >
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2013 19:59:02 UTC