Hi - > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:52 PM > Subject: Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfinposted > > Randy Presuhn writes: > > > At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the > > effort required to get anything done. > > How hard can it be to delete messages? > > > Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a > > difficult bind when only ones expressing those viewpoints are > > individuals who also choose to behave badly. > > You can just ignore people who behave badly. Why must they be > silenced for everyone just because you don't want to hear them? > > > Invoking RFC 3934 at the WG level is not something that any WG chair > > would undertake lightly. > > I don't even understand why this is an RFC. What does it have to do > with the technical functioning of the Internet? What next? An RFC > establishing an official religion? > > > I'm sure the IESG is fully aware of the gravity of invoking RFC 3683. > > I doubt that. If it were that aware, no such RFC would exist in the > first place. > > > However, the reason the procedures exist at all is out of the > > recognition that a very few people are so abusive of our processes > > and culture that we need to be able to cut them off so that we can > > get real work done. > > Translation: Everyone reaches a point where he prefers to censor > others rather than tolerate them. > > > If their technical arguments have real merit, they will reach us by other > > avenues. > > If other avenues work, you don't need mailing lists, do you? > > > It would be so much simpler if everyone could be counted on to > > recognize (easy) and ignore (hard) the bad actors. > > If people don't want to ignore them, why is it your duty to do their > thinking for them? ... The context of my response was Anthony's earlier posting which mused: > If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts, > perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence. My answer to Anthony's questions is that I've experienced one of these onslaughts while serving as a WG co-chair. In that position, one does NOT have the luxury of killfiles, and can NOT simply ignore their technical arguments, particularly when the postings are filled with threats of appeals and other invocations of time-and-resource consuming process mechanisms. When the bad behaviour triggers bad behaviour in other WG members and distracts the WG from its deliverables, we all suffer, but *especially* the ADs and WG chairs. We have far too much to do as it is. Dealing with trivial-issue DoS attacks, psuedo-technical postings that must be scanned in hope of somehow finding a plausible concern, and constant threats of appeal *dramatically* increases the workload. Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf