On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:15 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/4/22 19:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
> 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.
Deciding whether to abuse someone should not be a consensus process.
The action is not abuse if we see it from the IETF regulations, but to have a solution, do you think this organisation has no regulations? You need to find a proof that the action is wrong from IETF RFCs or regulations. Your respond is not solving the *real problem* so it does happen again and again for more years in future.
I think the real problem is not the attack on one individual (that is a respond not attack), nor is it that the attacker is in power (who is in power should react to make progress), but *the problem* is : that there are many participants are feeling bad (they have private-complains and want works/discussions to progress without many individuals leaving the community) of such behavior in IETF, and there are few happy with such behavior, the IESG as leader has to respond to such request from community to solve *the problem*, the IESG tried alot with the individual but no change for two years, IESG has used no power to attack for two years. Now we need to have the respond from the community.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
