> (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.
Acutally I think it's probably Harald being able to just concern himself
with spearheading his own issues for once after many years of service to the
IETF which likely prevented him from taking sides on many issues. I
certainly think that if someone feels passionately about preserving
someone's rights to post to the list because they're input is that valuable
they will take that course. This is not an IESG or administrative action in
any way. It's the motion of one person to the organization. NOBODY IS IN ANY
WAY LIMITING YOU FROM TAKING ANY ACTION! Not to mention the fact that there
is quite a few levels of appeals built into this process just like any
other.
> Note that the whole issue of list ban is treading on first
> amendment grounds in a way that could end up in court.
>
Are you saying spammers have write to send us all emails we don't feel are
valid every day? I distinctly recall complaining about an organization that
was spamming many WG lists with conference postsings, and I didn't notice
any vehment opposition on the grounds of free speech popping up.
Quote from RFC which I guess you didn't read:
" Q: Is this censorship?
A: Only if you believe in anarchy.
What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit
the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based
process.
"
> > 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
>
His page is for him. It's not for the IETF. The reason we have rough
consensus is specifically because nobody expects everyone to be impartial
and perfect.
> > 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.
>
If nobody cares enough to mount the effort....that seems like some good
evidence to me. It might be worth noting that this process just like any
other requires rough consensus, so I'm not really sure what you're talking
about. What, out of curiostiy, is better then evidence to present? Should we
take a poll on who likes whom? Do we have any statistics on how many people
have been banned from the list? You say inevitable but haven't really backed
it up with any facts.
> > 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.
>
I'm not glad sombody who didn't even choose to read the relavant documents
is criticizing the process. I am glad to see this much discussion, which
easily alays my fears of a bad choice being made. I'm sorry if this mail in
particular seems vehment, but I think that's fairly disrespectful to all of
us for you to criticize a process, and well, frankly blindly doing so seems
to me a frank effort to do just what RFC 3683 seeks to prevent, bogging down
the IETF with inpertinent statements for no reason.
> Regards,
> Julien.
>
> --
> Julien Maisonneuve
> (not speaking for my employer or anyone else)
>
That's nice that you have the luxury to speak for yourself only, which you
seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't apply to others. I certainly
read a lot of contradictions, and unfounded claims, along with outright
disrespect for IETF members and it's documents. Pardon me if I seem a little
bothered.
-Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf