| yes. you can see legal threats, restrictions from sergeant at arms (what the moderators were then called) etc at ...years ago. the IETF is open and inclusive, which I'm personally quite thankful for - wouldn't have gained my PhD and other things without it. The IETF tolerance for people who may go on to one day make useful contributions is, depending on your point of view, laudable, educational (it takes a village to raise a child), or an entirely self-serving aspect of its business model, which is based on parasitizing and exploiting freely contributed brainpower. That brainpower has to keep coming from somewhere. New volunteers. fresh meat. Keeping the IETF going as a parasocial organism demands this. That's the model. but sometimes, the cost to the IETF community of dealing with the volunteers and their contributions is high, particularly when the volunteers consistently fail to understand the guidance (technical, procedural, and social) given to them. Over a period of years. that's the tradeoff in the IETF's model, and this is an extreme outlier case showing that starkly. but alternative models would be worse in other important aspects, I think. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx On 22 Sep 2022, at 06:46, Rob Evans <internetplumber@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
