Re: Inputting mixed SC/TC (Re: [idn] A question...)

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

James Seng/Personal writes:
> 1. We did not move IDNA forward in May/June 2001

What exactly has changed since then? You've been tweaking details. We
were objecting to fundamental flaws in the IDNA design. Those flaws are
still present in the current IDNA design. We continue to object to them.

> 2. The minutes from SLC have been send to the group and for comments.
>    Action items from the SLC include consensus to move IDNA for Last
>    Call.

The working group is _not_ the same as the set of people who show up at
an IETF meeting. See RFC 2418, section 3.2:

   Electronic mail permits the widest participation ... The WG must
   ensure that its process does not serve to exclude contribution by
   email-only participants ... Internet email discussion is possible for
   a much wider base of interested persons than is attendance at IETF
   meetings, due to the time and expense required to attend.

I accuse you of bias in your procedures for evaluating consensus. You
select procedures on the fly to support your position:

   * You run straw polls that you think will support IDNA, and you
     refuse to run other straw polls.

   * You say ``A louder voice does not make anyone more important than
     others'' when several of us put a great deal of time into
     explaining the flaws in your proposals in detail.

   * You say ``This is not an election'' when more than _two hundred_
     people state that they object to your proposals.

What's consistent is that you're discounting the views of people who
disagree with you. I call upon you to resign and find someone neutral to
serve as chair.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago