First of all I want to state that I also find the single cited
message [1] clearly inappropriate and not consistent with the
purpose of the IETF list. If by that message Mr. McSweeney was
trying to make some point of relevance to the IETF list or the
IETF organization, I am unable to identify what that point was.
(For example, I find no reason to believe that this message was a
case of satire that simply went over many readers' heads.)
I believe that anyone so accused deserves some benefit of the
doubt. But even if I try my hardest to see some merit in the
cited message, I conclude that it was, at the very least, lacking
essential context.
I would support a brief (few weeks) suspension of Mr. McSweeney's
posting privileges, especially if it can be done by a less
disruptive mechanism than that specified in BCP 83.
------
However, I decline to support the PR-Action for several
reasons: Mostly I think it sets the wrong tone for a
consensus-building organization that needs to be open to input
from everyone with a technical contribution to make, even those
who are difficult or difficult to understand, in order to properly
do its job. I think it encourages poor behavior among the
organization's participants, including engaging in "fishing
expeditions" to find dirt on a fellow participant as a form of
virtue signaling, or as attempts on the part of those doing the
criticizing to shield themselves from being similarly attacked. I
also don't believe that anyone should have to defend themselves
against accusations based on arbitrarily old messages (whose
context has long been lost) or vague recollections of other
community members or especially against what some people imagine
their intent was. The accusations it makes of intent are without
support, and amount to pure speculation on the part of the
accusers, similar to Orwellian thoughtcrime. BCP 83 states a
purpose of minimizing disruption, but experience shows that it
fails to serve that purpose - it's far more likely to increase
disruption than to reduce it. IMO the BCP 83 method is not
becoming of an organization that thinks of itself as
"professional", at least giving my understanding of the term as
including virtues such as discipline, precision
and restraint.
There is a need for IETF to employ some kind of corrective
feedback in response to inappropriate messages to public
messages. But despite good intentions and being a
consensus-approved process, BCP 83 isn't it, at least under
current conditions.
Respectfully,
Keith Moore
-
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NjNux65wUXXQaMmgENuwoopZPjI/
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
