On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote: > > 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette > > committee, during the committee is considering a request, and > > after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of > > scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such > > as this one which plague the IETF list. > > In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser > > will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette > > committee, which means that after inventing this entire > > mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony. > > I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the > decision I can accept it and move on. That's another reason why I think it > should be an unmanipulated membership. That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to do so? I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular, although I do have some private opinions on this matter. The question is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner? It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an exploit said security hole. If this is considered irresponsible when designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when designing organizational policies? - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf