Nicholas, On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 05:46:33PM -0700, Nicholas Staff wrote: > > David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the > IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. I first sent a message on the dnsop mail list that most people would interpret as a clear warning to behave better or face the consequences. However, considering earlier misunderstandings, I sent him a private message to make sure he fully understood what I was telling him. > Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it > was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone > who had a differing technical opinion. He did two things: He sent another inflammatory message to the dnsop mail list in which he again attacked a well-known organization while he was just told to refrain from such attacks. In addition, he forwarded my private message to the IETF mail list. However, he not just forwarded my private messsage, he added simular accusations as the ones in his earlier messages to the dnsop mail list. > You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another > abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that > basically correct? No, it was not his complaint as he did not sent a complaint. It was the fact that he used his messages to repeat the same accusations that he was warned not to repeat. > If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a > complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a > reason for retribution? I did not send my request to the IESG just because he voiced his opinion or filed a complaint. I sent my request, because, among others, his comments were out of scope for the dnsop working group, he voiced his opinion in a totally unprofessional manner and repeated this behavior on two different mail lists right after he was warned. I hope this helps to clarify the events. David Kessens --- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf