Ted, One way to deal with the fact that having a fair and impartial selection process might occasionally get you a bad egg is to have an equally fair mechanism for "impeaching" a member of the selected group. If I am recalling things correctly, isn't that how the same issue is dealt with in the NomCom process? -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx --> [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of --> Theodore Ts'o --> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:00 PM --> To: Nick Staff --> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process --> --> --> 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 mailing list --> Ietf@xxxxxxxx --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf