Randy: There seems to be more than rough consensus from many IETF leadership
representatives that this is the right course of action from the number of
+1 reactions to this thread.
What i wonder is why there was no suggestion made as to where to continue the discussion
for folks interested in it other than on an interim. To the best of my understanding,
the rules for inclusiveness in the IETF do typically say that email is our primary
discussion channel and given how the topic was accepted for an interrim it seems not
inclusive to not also allow the discussion in email then. But maybe i am confused
about the rules.
If the topic is meant to be disucssed an a gendispatch interrim, would it not too be
appropriate to ask for the discussion to go to gendispatch mailing list until that
group has decided on a better place ?
Cheers
Toerless
Oe Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:29:10AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > We wanted to let the list know that the sergeant-at-arms (SAA) team
> > (described in more detail at [1]) has determined that Nadim Kobeissi
> > has engaged in a pattern of abuse based on their recent substantive messages to
> > this list [2][3] under a new subject line but on the same topic
> > against the direction from the IETF Chair [4]. Their posting rights to the ietf@xxxxxxxx <mailto:ietf@xxxxxxxx> mailing list have been
> > restricted for the next 14 days. We encourage everyone to review the
> > IETF discussion list charter [5] and our SOP [6].
>
> wow! just wow! what a horrifying and tragic exercise of power and
> censorship. a sad and disgusting day for the ietf.
>
> i am sure that some will be cheered that i will unsubscribe from this
> authoritarian and highly biased regime.
>
> randy
>
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
