I think there is no point in continuing to engage in discussion here. It’s pretty clear what the consensus is. Its pretty clear that Keith will reply to each message here. Keith is one person. I expect that the IESG will count his hundred messages as a single objection, not a hundred. I appreciate that he wants to participate in this decision, and he has a right to do so. But we don’t need to argue with him—the IESG knows how to evaluate consensus, and our continued engagement should not affect this process.
Op di 4 okt. 2022 om 16:37 schreef Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10/4/22 16:06, Tom Beecher wrote:
I certainly acknowledge the potential problem. But it's also problematic to say "it's okay for IESG to attack people, or to amplify people who insult/attack the IETF community, but not okay for people to respond."and that many of Dan's
supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
personal attacks on himself or on the community.
This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are saying that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal "attack", they should be afforded complete license to respond in any manner they so choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier version of "Well he started it."
Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.
In other words, who gets to get away with being a bully?
Really I think everybody has an obligation to try to keep from adding energy to such feedback loops. But community leaders (especially IESG but also others in authority) have an even greater obligation to do that than ordinary participants, because the potential for harm is greater if someone in power is adding fuel to the fire.
--Keith
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
