Hi Warren,
At 07:30 AM 17-08-2020, Warren Kumari wrote:
I'd like to ask y'all to reconsider leaving this list, because voices
matter, individually and in the aggregate. The IESG needs to know
every time it screws up (and, hopefully, if we get something right!).
I completely understand -- and agree -- that participating in the list
can be painful and difficult; but please, try to stick it out. We need
to be building the society that we want; one part of this is
participating in these uncomfortable discussions, and also letting the
"leadership" know when we mess up. I know it sometimes might not seem
like it, but we are listening, and really are trying to do the right
thing.
This list might not be where the technical work gets done, but it is
one of the places where community is built. And a community matters
for technical discussions, especially when there is dissenting opinion
or a contentious topic.
First of all, thank you for posting the above message.
Nowadays, this mailing list is an avenue for subscribers who cannot
pay the fee for the LLC's Pay-TV channel [1] to express their
opinion. It can also be useful for subscribers who do not have a
"right to redress" [2]. That right is more important than the right
to vote as it provides a protection against arbitrary decisions or
procedural failures.
It is not possible to build a society when the leaders are happily
cut off from the rest of the society, e.g. most Area Directors do not
participate in ietf@ discussions, or when Area Directors decide what
they believe is right without being accountable for their decisions.
It is the first time I see a subscriber receiving a warning from the
Sergeant-at-Arms for sending an email [3] to the IETF Chair. That is
the kind of event you would see in so-called authoritarian
regimes. On a tangent, I previously suggested to an IAB member that
the Sergeant-at-Arms is not a model to follow [4].
It is also the first time that I see a subscriber reprimanded for
sending substantive messages to this mailing list. This is part of
an announcement whish is issued on a Last Call: Please send
substantive comments ... The IESG is requesting substantive comments
in one context and forbidding it in another context. Does that make
sense to you?
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OVpGoGUKoTBGS-9DUQ7tuCBV174/
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03
3. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
4.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mZioFDZ34zQSh7fU23sK9lmqTg8/
