On 04-Oct-22 08:04, Toerless Eckert wrote: ...
- There is no clear explicit list of what is in evidence, instead we are asked to find that evidence ourselves from long mailing lists, not knowing how far back judgements where made.
Huh? The Last Call messages includes an explicit list of example messages, which in my opinion are sufficient on their own.
- There are references made to unreasonable behavior in private conversation, which we can not vet,
That's true, and technically irrelevant anyway since the topic is inappropriate postings on specific lists.
and drafts that have been completely removed, so we can not vet those either (now).
Consider yourself fortunate. Those of us who read them at the time were mainly glad to see them removed. But a point that I haven't seen made on list is that even if we construe those drafts as satire in the spirit of (e.g.) Jonathan Swift, such satire is mainly recognizable to people of English mother tongue and with a broad general education. They would appear simply offensive to IETF participants who know English mainly as a language for technical, engineering and scientific work. So whatever the intention of those drafts, they definitely had a negative impact on our community as a whole.
- To me, this "discussion" looks a lot like a misguided public trial with an unclear separation between accusers and judges, but without any clear assigned defender.
If you think the BCP83 process has that defect, see the above Subject header. As far as I can tell, the IESG has followed the current process correctly.
IMHO all that makes those process steps overall more hurtfull to the reputation of the IETF than helpfull,
I don't agree. I think it's better to have the debate on the record than behind closed doors. Regards, Brian -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
