--On Saturday, June 15, 2024 00:49 -0400 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/15/24 00:30, Adam Roach wrote: > >> >> 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? > 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. > > 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, Noting Bron's request and apologizing if any of Adam's question, your response to it, or my response here get too close to the boundary... Mostly as an aside and fwiw, I believe BCP 83 is reasonably clear that it is not about "punitive actions" but about protecting the IETF against the consequences of certain types of disruptive behavior. I don't know if that distinction has any impact on your analysis. Having read your response to Adam's question, I feel a need to ask a slightly different one: would it be reasonable to infer that, at least barring clear evidence of an emergency*, you would oppose any further use of BCP 83 without a fairly drastic revision of the review and approval process? thanks, john * What would actually constitute an emergency that would make a BCP 83 PR-action appropriate given the four-week delay is, of course, a separate question. -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
