Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2

["James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

Eric,

I see no further need for discussion since this has now degrade into a
personal attack, which is also typical of you.

Aside: If "higher levels of professional courtesy" means subtle sarcatic
personal attack on a continuous basis and derailing working group
because of private conflicts, I think I rather not have any part of
"higher levels of professional courtesy".

-James Seng

> James,
>
> If writing "you have not follow the list" makes you feel better,
enjoy.
>
> In , Subject: [idn] Update
> Charter revision 2, you wrote:
> > Comments please.
> >
> >-James Seng
> >
> >--- CUT HERE ---
> ...
>
> In , Re: [idn] Update Charter
> revision 2, you wrote:
> ...
> > The note on 23rd is a notice that there will be a new update, not a
> > request for discussion.
>
> Now, as to the substance.
>
> Of the changes you propose to the Description section, only one, the
> 3rd,
> has the effect of limiting scope. Whether the limit is useful is
another
> issue.
>
> The second proposed change:
>
> The WG work may modify the DNS protocol and other related work
> undertaken by the DNSEXT WG.
>
> But such changes must be co-ordinated with the DNSEXT WG.
>
> I left off comment on the second sentance because it is unnecessary,
no
> matter what the first sentance reads, in fact, the very idea that your
> off-list discussion has extended to you controlling authority over
> DNSEXT
> is comic.
>
> As to the substance of the proposed change, which is interesting:
>
> > Because you are assuming that IDNA is the only one moving forward. I
> am
> > assuming we will get other proposal.
>
> In your working group there is rough consensus to exclude any
> non-application
> framework, and the DNSEXT WG exists for extensions to the DNS (and in
> this
> context "DNS" is understood not to be an "application", though it sure
> as heck
> is one).
>
> I'm writing a UTF-8 draft (no surprise except how long its taking),
and
> Erik
> asked me to send a copy to your working group, but I'm submitting it
to
> the
> DNSEXT WG, for consideration to adopt as a working group document, not
> to your
> WG, which I view as out of control and about the worst run WG I've
seen
> in the
> decade+ I've been participating in the IETF. To be fair, most of my
work
> since
> the mid-80's has been in a more collegial operating systems
environment,
> where
> higher levels of professional courtsey are the norm.
>
> Commenting on the third proposed change, you observed:
> ...
> > I could argue the existing charter allows us to redefine a new
> > character code set for the purpose of IDN.
> ...
>
> Correct. This was the subject of a discussion (off-list) between
myself,
> the ADs (Erik and Tom), the technical advisors (John and Harald),
> Patrik,
> and both you and Marc.
>
> There is a difference between creating an alternative or alternatives
to
> iso10646, and discussing CRLF mapping. In your zeal to control the
> reordering
> problem space (and it is complex), you over reached.
>
> > You have obviously twist my words, as usual.
>
> Maybe you made a mistake. Consider the possibility.
>
> > ... I see no valid arguments in your comment.
> >
> > Thank you but i like to hear from others.
>
> By all means, the work group is more than just some egos let loose on
a
> list.
>
> Eric
>
>
>