Ladies and gentlemen, I don't understand how things can get so confrontational this quickly. Please let's contain the aggression. We're just talking about a charter here. Save some of this energy for the working group.
Also, I would remind us all that questions about the utility of and experience with any of the solutions on the table -- and that goes for elements of the proposal as well as alternative ideas that are coming up -- are within bounds, as these ideas are subject to examination. An open standards process requires this, and we need to embrace it rather than be offended by it. We won't be able to justify the output to the IESG or to the community otherwise. There's no doubt that some very smart people have worked on each of the various pieces of the story that are before us, including newer ideas. Our job as a working group will be to synthesize these into a solution we're prepared to claim is deserving of a Standards Track RFC, and moreover to defend not only that but the path by which we got there, including the things we considered and discarded. Please let's set aside the authority tactics and adverse allegations of motive. All of us have been doing this for a long time, and the common goal here is to make things work better. I would like to think the outcome here can be very positive if we can point all of that energy and expertise into a common direction rather than finding ways to tear it all down. The alternative is one or both of a heavily moderated list and a solution that gets developed in private and broadly deployed, and I'm reasonably certain we don't want either of those. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
