On 6/15/24 01:08, John C Klensin wrote:
I would recommend that, at a minimum, IESG consider the potential for any future BCP 83 PR-action (under current rules) to cause more disruption than whatever problem they're trying to solve, before initiating such action.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?
But I also think there's a dubious assumption behind these actions, which is that the way to combat "disruption" is to publicly punish the individuals seen as "disruptive" so that they can serve as examples to others. I get the impression that some people see support for such actions as a moral or at least social imperative ("How dare you not support severely punishing someone exhibiting so much prejudice?") And people quite commonly imagine that they understand the thinking and intent of those individuals, which I have reason to sincerely doubt.
I'm always reminded that trying to build consensus among people of widely varying experiences is difficult and often frustrating work, and people sometimes don't handle that frustration well. I'm also reminded that neurodivergent individuals (which includes but isn't limited to highly intelligent individuals) are constantly struggling to function in a world that literally makes little sense to them, and whose conventions often seem opaque, mystifying and/or even destructive. Many such individuals have made significant contributions to the Internet (whether or not through IETF). But there are constant pressures to silence them and/or demand that they be "normal" (or "professional" in some meanings of the word). I think that's as evil as any other kind of prejudice against something that someone didn't choose for themself.
Keith
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
