W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 11:40:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwix1B2tKM54cHPSyJRZKELyThQyVe0DQM=_QCD6GWtjYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
Note: a third non responsive response.

Are you actually going to answer the question?

What are the other formats that you think should be considered and why?

I suggest that before responding with a fourth non-response you
actually address the question I and others asked.

I am not interested in you being a process Pharisee either.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> On May 9, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> This is now the second post where you have failed to mention what they
>> are or give a justification for continuing to consider them.
>> I have invariably found that people who claim that there is a really
>> good reason to take a course of action that they refuse to disclose
>> despite requests to do so have no real argument to make.
> "Refuse" is just typical trolling. Heather Flanagan, the RSE, has told us what her desired process is, and many of us intend to follow it. When she asks for written proposals (a follow-on to her request for presented proposals that many of us made in Paris), many of us intend to do so.
>> IETF process is that decisions are made on the Internet and not in
>> meetings. If people think those reasons are valid they should write
>> 'em up and post here.
> Note that this has *nothing* to do with IETF process. As has been made clear over the past few years on this very list, the RFC Series is not bound by the IETF process at all.
> --Paul Hoffman

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 15:40:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC