I don't really know what to say to all this. Dan, if you've had a PR-action taken against you, that's bad, and you should be working to adjust your behavior, not complaining about how poorly you've been treated. Sorry. It doesn't mean you're a bad person, or that we should dislike you. It means that you need to take responsibility. We need to ask you to take responsibility, which I think is what Lars was trying to do. And you need to step up and take it. That's what being part of a community means.
It's not like I have any right to say what the IETF should do here, any more than any other participant. But for what it's worth, I would very much like to see the IETF take on a much less tolerant policy toward antisocial behavior. If Dan really wants to get work done in the IETF, it's not unreasonable to expect him to make accommodations.
Getting review and collaboration in the IETF is an amazing privilege and a gift.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 9:03 PM Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--On 6/11/24 17:25, Dan Harkins wrote:
So let's rein this in a bit. No blanket bans. I don't know Tim
McSweeney from Adam and my opinion on this last-call is pretty
worthless given my current standing but unless there is a problem
on a list, people should not be banned.
In the general case, I agree. In this case, I think the following promise makes a blanket ban not just advisable, but entirely necessary:
On 6/9/24 23:05, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
And Roman, if I were you, I would expand this ban to all of the lists because you can be sure that I won''t be participating in good faith on any other list after a ban.
/a
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
