On 10/7/22 15:37, Joel Halpern wrote:
And, as occurred in this case, they should be talked to about whether they understand the problem and are willing to change their behavior. If not, and if they demonstrate they are unwilling to modify their behavior, then we as a community are obliged to take explicit steps to prevent the bad behavior.
While I certainly support the idea of privately consulting with an individual who is accused of inappropriate behavior before taking action, there are some problems with that, or maybe holes in the process. One is a lack of transparency. IESG may claim that they've done so, but we don't know what was said, how clearly it was said, what threats were made, or whether there was any truth or validity at all to whatever accusations were made at the time. We have no reason to accept IESG's claim as valid on its face, nor should we assume that they provided any real support for their claims of inappropriate behavior, as indeed, they have not done in this Last Call (IMO).
I don't claim that this is an easy problem to solve, because part of the point of such conversations is to try to resolve the perceived issue without exposing the accused to unnecessary embarrassment if the problem can be easily resolved. In the case of some simple misunderstanding that can be cleared up, why air any of the dirty laundry? But the overall progression from "hey, could we talk to you about something?" to "ok, we're going to formally invoke process to revoke your posting rights", and the appropriate kind of communication and transparency of each step, seem unclear.
Keith -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
