On Fri, Mar 24, 2023, 10:10 Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > On 3/24/23 9:58 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > > > On 24 Mar 2023, at 16:48, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> <m...@mtcc.com> > wrote: > > > On 3/24/23 6:14 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > > Please, let’s focus on the current issue with is addressing and refining > the problem statement. > > > So you agree with me that any discussion of ARC and its complete failings > should be out of scope? I would appreciate the chairs enforcing that. > > > I said we should be focusing on addressing and refining the problem > statement. > > Maybe you should have a conversation with your AD who brought up ARC in > one of the threads here. > Just to be clear:
A participant (me) made a suggestion. The AD (as it happens, also me) didn't say anything that should be taken as proscriptive. The content of this and any WG document has to represent the consensus of the WG participants. If consensus is to keep ARC in the document, then that's what goes forward. I have a long history of participation in this area, and I am not barred from continuing to do so just because of the role to which I have been appointed. I obviously have to be careful about conflict of interest or undue influence, but I'm working with the chairs and the IESG to keep that all clean and above board. If it means I find a different AD to support this WG to avoid confusion, then that's what we'll do. So unless I say something clearly indicating that I'm talking as an AD, please assume that I'm just talking as a participant. -MSK >
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
