> From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:tytso@xxxxxxx] > > 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 Absolutely I agree Ted. I was just trying to express how it would effect me as that's the only position I can (sometimes) speak authoritatively on. Ultimately I don't see what you're suggesting that has any addition controls - whether it's a committee or a single person the same appeal process can be used and the same controls put in place. If you are referring to one of the committee members being wacko I think I provided sufficient control for that (as nothing requires unanimous vote and voting can be forced by majority). If it's a nut job list participant then I guess I could call some old friends in South Central Los Angeles to chop off their fingers but then there's always speech recognition...I guess my question to you is please tell me exactly what your concern is (if you want to do this off-list so we don't annoy everyone that's cool with me) and I promise I will address them and try to work with you to find an agreeable solution. Best, Nick _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf