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
