(this should not go on ietf@ietf, but for lack of a better list...
please disregard if it bothers you)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Sure there is - create your own page, write your petition text, and
ask people to sign up there. I'll even share the PHP code with you if
you want it!
This is not what I call a "symmetrical" means to express disapproval :
for the average reader, it take a *lot* more work to defend than to attack.
So I take your answer is there is no symmetrical way and it is a lot
harder to express disapproval than approval. This is what I call a
slanted process, and I would deem it inappropriate in any oranization
that prides itself on fair and balanced processes.
Note that the whole issue of list ban is treading on first amendment
grounds in a way that could end up in court.
I have taken on the role of arguing *for* banning Jefsey from the
IETF. I'm not neutral in any way, shape or form. It's the IESG's
business to say whether or not the requirements of the RFC are fulfiled.
This is what I call "partial". Being partial is perfectly OK. It's just
that I don't think the process should rely on partiality. I even think
it should exclude partiality as much as possible. The way to do that
here is to allow people to express their opinion in an unslanted way.
Your page would be a perfect tool if it wasn't slanted
The IESG decides based on evidence presented to it. One of the pieces
of evidence is that the people (10 so far) who have signed the
petition believe that Jefsey Morfin is being "abusive of the
consensus-driven process" (that's a quote from RFC 3683). Others may
want to present other relevant evidence.
Presenting slanted evidence is hardly a positive action. You will always
find a few people to ban a controversial poster. It will always be
harder to find people on the defending side, because the individual
interest in defending a (controversial) person is always low and will
generally not justify defensive actions.
That process will inevitably result in banning people even though a
(possibly silent) majority doesn't approve it. This is not what I would
call consensus-based decision.
I'm acting as advocate in this case. I'm not the jury.
Or rather prosecutor ?
PS: I recommend reading both RFC 3683 and a selection of Jefsey's
messages before making up your mind about the case....
I haven't, and I'm not even sure I care.
I'm worried about the process, and about the number of times it seems to
be invoked.
Banning should be exceptional. Now we are presented with two dubious
(read non obvious, possibly requiring very careful inspection to arrive
to a conclusion) cases in the space of a few days, and it appears that
the process itself is hardly symmetrical and lacks clear consensus
safeguards.
In a balanced world, this would spell doom for RFC3683.
Regards,
Julien.
--
Julien Maisonneuve
(not speaking for my employer or anyone else)
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf