[LIST Moderator hat on]:
Replying to this because it's the last message on the list when I got a chance to look at what's been happening rather than any particular comment on this message.
This discussion has now gone well off into litigating the entirety of IETF communication policy rather than the merits of this one particular action.
As you may remember from last time we had one of these; the purpose of a last-call on a PR action is to inform the community and give the community a chance to persuade the IESG to change their mind. From the intial posting:
The IESG plans to make a decision and is soliciting final community comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 6 July 2024 [4]. 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.
On that basis, please limit your responses to be substantive comments, with an eye to persuading the IESG of your position, and responsive to this PR in particular.
Regards,
Bron.
P.S. in case it is unclear, the "please" above is the kind of "please" that comes with moderator privileges behind it and I am perfectly willing to put people into a temporary timeout if they continue to bring non-last-call-responsive discussion into the thread.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, at 10:49, Dan Harkins wrote:
On 6/12/24 4:02 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:> On Jun 12, 2024, at 00:23, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> >>> On 6/11/2024 9:18 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:>>> I would argue that Dan’s recent message here, which is consistent with the>>> messages he sent that triggered the PR-action, is sufficient to justify>>> removing his posting rights on the IETF mailing list right away, since the>>> original PR action has not been withdrawn.>> Reasonable minds can disagree. Dan's message was based on his personal experience, was certainly informative, and did not attack anyone.> It attacked Lars by claiming an action of the entire IESG was Lars’ personal action with an implication that he was victim of a personal attack. Note also his use of mentioning other people by their role but not Lars.Oxford dictionary defines "attack" as: "an aggressive and violentaction against a person or place." There was no attack. Neitheraggressive nor violent. Please refrain from such hyperbole, itreally just inflames things and nothing good comes from that.The email Lars sent was not "an action of the entire IESG" andit wasn't even an email from the IETF chair. It was a personal emailfrom his eggert.org account to the IRSG and he didn't even cc meeven though I was the subject of the email. He forwarded a copy tome; I have the receipts.I am not implying I'm the victim of a personal attack (again withthe hyperbole!). It was an effort to widen my ban and since blanketbans were the subject of my email I felt inclusion of this piece ofinformation was appropriate. That is all.Dan.--"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but toescape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius--last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxxTo unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
--
Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
brong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
