On 10/3/22 16:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
In my opinion, the list is nowhere nearly sufficient to support the
charges they are making. The general refusal to specifically say what
was wrong or what rule it violated are one of the huge problems with
this PR IMO.
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.
I objected to their removal. I said at the time and still consider it
an inappropriate action on the part of IESG, one that increased the
toxicity of IETF. I will concede that the Swift references (and also
Orwell, if I recall correctly) were probably lost on those who weren't
schooled in English-language literature.
- 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.
As far as can tell, they have indeed followed BCP83 correctly. That
they've followed the process doesn't mean it was a responsible or
prudent choice. I'm increasingly convinced from this that BCP83 needs
a drastic rewrite.
I doubt that BCP83 envisioned the extremely intolerant environment that
IETF is today. IETF was, as best I recall, much more tolerant in those
days, and I expect that BCP83 was intended for far more abusive posts
than anything we've seen from Dan.
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.
Transparency is essential, and I think a closed door proceeding would do
even more harm.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
