On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 6:26 AM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to change my position on this.
This ability to *change position* is very good for IETFers, which I think the message from IESG has pointed out that the individual has not changed the position and has continued same. Do you mean that it is ok that any individual can continue not changing position within discussions and continues unhelpful communication.
The action may help some participants to change positions to make IETF more communicative.
In a recent message, Dan acknowledges that using sarcasm or satire is problematic:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/-8qnygF1ywCc3nQAWg0jGCEtLdo/
To my mind, given that Dan has been a significant technical contributor over many years, that is really all the community can ask for. I don't think the IETF would gain anything at this point by applying a PR Action, and would possibly lose future significant technical contributions.
The IETF Chair message was clear below of no positive change. I think it is important within any discussion-thread that if got into conflict, then we need to follow the WG chair or IETF Chair, so we get in progress (change position), but not changing positions cannot be a good contribution.
> On 30-Sep-22 05:15, IETF Chair wrote:
>> Following community feedback after various incidents, as documented below, the
>> IESG has initiated a posting rights (PR) action that would restrict the posting
>> rights of Dan Harkins, as per the procedures found in BCP 83 (RFC 3683).
>> Specifically, his posting privileges to these lists would be suspended:
>>
>> * admin-discuss
>> * gendispatch
>> * ietf
>> * terminology
>>
>> In the IESG's opinion, this individual has a history of sending emails that are
>> inconsistent with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154) and thereby
>> "disrupt the consensus-driven process" (RFC 3683). Among these are contributions
>> that:
>>
>> * Express racism in the form of denying, belittling, and ridiculing anti-racist
>> sentiment and efforts
>>
>> * Are rude and abusive, and often amount to insulting ridicule
>>
>> (Links to examples of such emails sent to the lists above during the last two
>> years are provided at the end of this email.)
>>
>> Multiple attempts have been made to enter into a private discussion with this
>> individual, both by IESG and community members, to communicate disquiet with his
>> conduct on the lists. These attempts to restore respectful and courteous conduct
>> on the lists have been rebuffed with communication that can be considered both
>> antagonistic and hostile, and the pattern of behavior observed has continued.
Was there any change in position when IESG has communicated with the individual? What was the reasons of not changing such behavior.
Regards
AB
>>
>> The IESG also notes that the following actions have already been taken in
>> response to the individual's actions:
>>
>> * Two I-Ds were removed from the public archive due to their offensive nature:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-les-white-intersectional-dots
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-les-white-tls-preferred-pronouns
>> (following these links displays the tombstone notice explaining their removal)
>>
>> * His posting rights were restricted on the admin-discuss mailing list:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/admin-discuss/ZANH2VPN-U8VMvvOWLb5l03FdCs/
>>
>> * A final public warning was issued on the gendispatch mailing list:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/68a4amMa1aiaRUPzPGgXdiY9gHg/
>>
>> None of the attempts to discuss his participation style or warn the individual
>> have led to any improvements. The IESG therefore believes that a PR action is
>> the correct response to his continued problematic behavior across a number of
>> different lists.
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>> last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 27 October 2022. Exceptionally, comments may
>> be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. If sending private feedback to the IESG,
>> please indicate if you would be open to having your comments anonymized and
>> shared in a summary.
>>
>> Please note: Comments should be limited to the criteria described in BCP 83,
>> notably on whether the individual in question has engaged in postings that are
>> "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject" in a manner
>> disruptive enough to warrant this action.
>>
>> Lars Eggert
>> IETF Chair, on behalf of the IESG
>> –-
>>
>> Examples of problematic emails during the last two years include:
>>
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/zdq3F0PV40Cyw5ooj0orOWaYyUw/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/i-d7HlWgrkmrVlC7JZQSXDwIJCQ/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/YhPI9zZ_3xfidt5V-ORRnET36yY/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/B33zk8VfOYt4b4Cj-kIHXG3AXdg/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/d3iDS4WNkCJA3aMFnX2HjP4tsps/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-On8AHrdnnCMlJOOyb1M1nlYMpk/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/n6UMvDuYLKmmvpP1ajICFvf634M/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/QCdjDbokmlARcwVqQ1TV3Rlz7eQ/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/X6OF0MBKAzyLhYaAfAxS6srXRNw/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/idJhG1MsLmKHyRlaAafcW2JF6Z8/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/LoGSVatZ4EsYRq4K52rmvRZTndk/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/pl2lVqhtF4Z-0YuTjhCOmdyi1qE/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DFgnF_j8py_eMBGI1IUFdMahTKw/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/terminology/T3oCpY3BbTNLXWAWsCnFvahRLUQ/
>> * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/admin-discuss/xLuz4WTCm5ibIiMVN5ID8OWsCI0/
>>
--
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
