On 6/15/24 00:30, Adam Roach wrote:
no. I haven't tried to do such an evaluation, and I can think of at least hypothetical cases in which I'd support use of BCP 83, at least in an emergency. But I think we have enough experience with BCP 83 by now to see its considerable downsides, and I find much of the community's response to BCP 83 PR-actions (including this one) to be unprofessional and disruptive to IETF's purpose.
For avoidance of doubt: would it be fair to infer from the second half of your message (the portion below the dividing line) that you would decline to support any PR-Action based on the process described by BCP 83?
More generally I don't think a "rough consensus" process similar to that we use to approve protocols, is an appropriate way to consider punitive actions. People can contribute to consensus to support a protocol for their own reasons; they don't need to supply any clear or precise justification, and I'd argue that that's a feature. But when considering punitive actions it seems to encourage everyone in the self-appointed "jury" to come up with their own charges, their own evidence, their own rationale to support the punishment. It's basically a witch trial, or a mob trial, in which all accusations (no matter how poorly founded) are considered to be valid without support, and there's peer pressure within the mob to start (metaphorically) throwing stones.
Keith
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
