Hi Roman,
I don't think that revising the justification for the PR-action after
you've concluded it is right. In fact, it seems like a tell that you
didn't have the goods originally.
An example of an email being "abusive of the consensus-driven process"
was:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/Xjti6NAGzJcf5NGOm5B4-VeXviY/
I don't understand the question he's asking but it doesn't amount to abuse.
Also, you list:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/pDeKKQpjYrwRe4zyrGvzCmwE_ec/
as another example. Now, even though I've had my run-ins with Elliot Lear,
I still consider him a friend and think he's trustworthy. But if someone
does
not view him as trustworthy I fail to see how that abuses the consensus
driven process.
Let me give you an example of what the IESG, and the Ombudsteam, and
the moderators do not find abusive:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/g-A-p-xx3cwPGR8f1j2wIDpNQzs/
In that email, Phillip Halam-Baker accuses me, without any evidence
whatsoever,
of peddling "white replacement theory". That is a slanderous statement
and its
an outright lie.
He also accuses me of "regurgitating tropes" that were spread by the
mistress
of a Russian diplomat. More than just a lie, though, it's real insane
conspiracy
nonsense! He accuses me of Holocaust denial and anti-semitism yet nobody
cared!
I got a PR-action against me and Phillip Halam-Baker continues to spin
insane
conspiracies and is unpunished for slanderous statements on the IETF list.
And in spite of my PR-action lapsing over 18 months ago you still refuse
to do another last-call to restore my posting rights. So the 1 year ban is
really indefinite.
This process is broken and I don't think the people in charge-- you, the
IESG, the Ombudsteam, etc-- are up to the task here. You say, "The IESG
observes that there is significant energy and interest to continue
discussing
moderation." I'll bet! Censors wanna censor. But given the tolerance of
Phillip Halam-Baker's slanderous utterances it seems that there aren't
really any real standards of conduct here, it's all personal*.
I hope you take this email as representative of a diverse opinion on
a relevant topic and not as reason to further restrict my posting rights.
I'm sure that topic will come up, but do the right thing and resist it.
Dan.
* I have been told that members of the IESG have objected to t-shirts
I have worn at meetings. So yes, it really is personal. The IESG is
sort of like the mean girls table at junior high, petty and catty.
Sadly, they have all the authority.
On 7/10/24 6:50 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
# Last Call Result
The IESG received substantial feedback from the community in response to the last-call on the proposed BCP83 PR-action for Timothy Mcsweeney [1]. After evaluating this feedback and BCP 83, the IESG has concluded there is rough consensus to proceed with the PR-action.
Per the terms described in Section 2 of BCP83, the administrator of the ietf@xxxxxxxx list is directed to suspend Tim Mcsweeney’s posting privileges. Additionally, this same section advises “maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion, also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.”
# Feedback Summary
The last-call email thread constituted almost all of the feedback on this PR-action. The IESG received only a few messages directly. Across all feedback, about half of the respondents from the community commented directly with a position on the PR-action while the other half provided commentary on the process of the IESG or moderation in the IETF without taking a position on the PR-action. Some respondents provided both a position and commentary.
The IESG thanks the community for providing this feedback. More detailed treatment of this feedback is below.
# Revised Justification
The majority of the feedback that directly addressed the PR-action indicated support for it as written in [1]. A minority of the feedback supported the PR-action but expressed a desire for the IESG to further document the basis of the action to take into account Tim Mcsweeney’s prior behavior. This feedback provided additional examples, not all of which are included here. In response to this feedback the IESG amends the justification for the PR-action as follows:
The IESG has assessed that this individual has sent emails in violation of the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154), thereby being "abusive of the consensus-driven process" as outlined in RFC 3683. Among the recent contributions across multiple lists are:
* August 2022, thread in uri-review@xxxxxxxx,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/Xjti6NAGzJcf5NGOm5B4-VeXviY/
* May 31, 2024, uri-review@xxxxxxxx, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/pDeKKQpjYrwRe4zyrGvzCmwE_ec/
* June 4, 2024, ietf@xxxxxxxx, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NjNux65wUXXQaMmgENuwoopZPjI/
Note: Support for this PR-action was not unanimous. A small fraction of community feedback explicitly did not support the action or noted a discrepancy between this PR-action and the actions taken by list moderators.
# Other Last Call Feedback Summary
The community expressed a broad array of perspectives on the implementation of moderation in the IETF to include:
* which sanctions are appropriate;
* the behavior which should trigger their applications;
* who should have this responsibility;
* the efficacy of PR-action under BCP83;
* the interplay of list moderators and PR-actions; and
* the harm of action or inaction on moderation in enforcing the code of behavior has on the IETF.
Entirely new approaches to moderations and refinement of BCP83 were also discussed. As many of these topics were not directly related to feedback on this PR-action, parallel discussion threads spawned on the main IETF discussion list (e.g., [3], [4] and [5]).
The subject of this PR-action, Tim Mcsweeney, engaged on this thread to recommend that the PR-action against him be expanded to cover “all of the lists because you can be sure that I won't be participating in good faith on any other list after a ban” [2]. A fraction of community response suggested this admission should be immediately actioned through another IETF Last Call.
# IESG Assessment on Additional Steps
The IESG observes that there is significant energy and interest to continue discussing moderation. This PR-action thread highlighted several refinements of existing practices and introduced a new comprehensive approach (e.g., draft-ecahc-moderation). During this same time as this last-call, but not mentioned in the thread, draft-lear-bcp83-replacement was also published. The IESG welcomes additional community proposals and commentary on these existing ones.
To provide an immediate forum for this discussion, the IESG has established a new non-WG mailing list, mod-discuss@xxxxxxxx [6]. Please direct your feedback and interest to this dedicated list.
In the short term, the IESG believes this new mailing list can incubate these drafts, other proposals, and related discussions. The IESG assesses that a comprehensive and durable solution to community moderation will require new BCP(s) and this would be best facilitated through a narrowly scoped WG in the GEN area. It intends to convene discussions around interest and scope of such a WG on this new mod-discuss@xxxxxxxx list.
# Final Reminder
The IESG reiterates that the purpose of this action is to minimize disruptive behavior by a single participant. The IESG also reaffirms that a diverse set of opinions on relevant topics are both important for the IETF and actively encouraged.
Roman Danyliw
IETF Chair
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/JM29M9ZTOyXTAnTnvPX6NUnJhVE/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/IIOYqIYP6UdTTbNOCmpBRwpOJLc/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Jq600UAbUBCswudtdlnXWSFl_I0/
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GbLbsGUcC4QtUyBXjkTX4WLOAzs/
[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rk5zNgQ29ATVb1X_b68qCS48nGQ/
[6] https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/mod-discuss@xxxxxxxx/
--
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
