> Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk > > Note that I consider it irrelevant > whether his position in this or any past instance turns out to be > correct: it's the form, not the content, of his efforts that > is the problem. > > S > That is a perilous line of reasoning indeed. You're saying if I don't like the way you put something then I should be able to get you booted. In fact we're talking about DOS here. IF the subject matter is relevant to the working group, or in the case of the IETF list, generally converning the IETF's activities, procedures, and standards etc. than the discourse is serving it's purpose. Getting things done is not *typically* easy and pain free. In fact, if it is, then likely something was supressed, or the issues wasn't really in need of discussion. Is this issue preventing a working group from reaching consensus? Is the issue here that maybe this concern was addressed, not accepted to be calamitous enough by the working group to change course, and yet the same issue was raised again (that's what it seems like to me)? That may justify possibly suspending posting rights to the dnsop list (though I'm not making that claim) but how does that just extend to the IETF list in any way? Backing down because of fear of retribution from AD/Chairs/IESG etc. certainly is not condusive to progress so I don't consider much of this discussion off topic. As for what I've seen from the DNSOP list, as well as past history with Dean is that he is certainly forceful and opinionated in the way many of the vocal, active, and frankly productive members of the IETF are. I think we've gotten Dean's summary explanation of the situation from the message forwarded to the IETF list along with his other comments. What I've not seen is any sort of detail/outline with references to a series of emails which demonstrate a pattern of abuse, a warning, and continued abuse that one could verify but examining archives of email transmissions. It seems that rather quickly upon commencement of this topic people diverged into arguing the technical issues associated with his challenge, and personal matters relating to Dean. So in summary I pointedly disagree, and believe that the content of the messages ( and frankly the lack of pointed content in the challenge ) should be the primary factor in this matter, and I hope that being too forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent) doesn't become justification for reprimand. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf