If list management weren't a problem, and the policy were being followed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have been engaged with some people in private discussion that has illuminated some fallacies. Apparently, some people think that somehow DJB just hasn't followed instructions. And that Bush has somehow "simply misunderstood". Neither of these are the case. >From a private message: > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg02010.html > > [ In this one, Bernstein states: 'As for my own sender address > djb@cr.yp.to, Bush has already taken manual action---but what he > did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known addresses.' > Bernstein fails to mention whether he explicitly asked Bush to > do this action. Bernstein also fails to acknowledge that his > posts have been clearly marked as being from a non-subscribed > address for some time. ] This seems pretty self explanatory, and supports my point. But you left off a critical piece: "---shortly after I had informed him that I kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge unsubscription requests." Note the 'after I informed him'. Obviously, Bush and Bernstein have had private conversations on this topic, and Bernstein has asked Bush to put djb@cr.yp.to on the post list. Very clearly, IESG policy is not being followed by the list maintainer. >From a private message: > Dean Anderson writes: > > The history of Bush mis-using his administrative tools to gratify his > > animosity towards certain people is well established, and is not > > irrelevant to the present situation. Bush will continue to abuse his > > priveleges, and its my opinion he should therefore be removed as > > namedroppers adminstrator. > > As I've said, I am not expressing an opinion on Bush's past behaviour, > and thus feel it is irrelevant to the current topic. How can it be irrelevant? If someone has a past history of abuse of a particular person, they can't be judged as though they have never met and have no reason to be malicious. Bush's "misunderstanding" is not accidental, but a pattern of willful harrassment. This is not a "personal attack" on Bush. I'm just stating the facts. The facts reflect badly on Bush, but that is through his own doing, or not doing. --Dean On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <dean@av8.com> > > I would agree the problem is solved if Bush adds the proper addresses to > > the approved subscribers list, as publicly requested. > > > > But since it has taken so much discussion to arrive at that solution (and > > I'm not sure we have yet), list management is clearly a problem, and has > > been a chronic problem. > > List management is not a problem; there is a policy statement and it is > followed. If individuals refuse to follow the documented process because > they wish to be a martyr, that is not the IETF's or IESG's problem. > > If someone has a problem with the process, that needs to be directed at the > IESG in a general form, not as a personal attack against a list maintainer > as long as said maintainer is following the IESG's policy. > > S > >