I've been following this discussion closely, as can be expected.It's been a long road here; the first version of Marshall's draft was written in April 2003, based on a POISED mailing list discussion.
It took 8 months and a lot of email before the IESG approved the document (in December 2003), asserting that the IETF community had consensus on the document (and I believe it was true at the time).
This is the first serious attempt at invoking it, and in trying to do so, I wanted certain things to be true:
- The community should be aware of what's happening. I think that's been achieved! - The request should be based on a grievance shared by a number of people, not on any individual's personal grievance. That's why I asked for help in drafting, and signatures on the petition. - The process should be carried out in the open, by people prepared to stand up for their position. That's why I chose to publish the signatures.
I think I achieved my goals. In retrospect, it might have been better to gather my signatures quietly and let the IETF debate occur at IETF Last Call. But hindsight is always perfect.....
Today (Friday), I'll pass the petition to the IESG for their consideration, and will leave it in their hands without arguing any more about it; I believe I have written enough about the specific case.
But the debate on the IETF list deserves comment.To me, the positions people have taken on the IETF list about the PR-action seem to fall into roughly three groups:
- The behaviour described is egregrious enough that the extreme measure of an RFC 3683 PR-Action is warranted.
- The behaviour described is not egregrious enough to justify the extreme measure of a PR-Action, but we can imagine situations where such an action would be justified.
- Under no circumstances can I imagine that a PR-Action can be warranted; the circumstances of the case do not matter.
(There's also a set of people saying "no comment").I think that Marshall Rose described the current way people handle irritating people well back in 2003 (POISED list, April 8):
people who have a high tolerance to pain, ignore it, those who have a lower tolerance to pain implement a local solution, and those with less of a tolerance have simply left the mailing lists.The logical consequence of the "nobody should be banned" position is that this is the way we want the IETF to be.
Some people will leave if we make that decision.I think that these people leaving will make the IETF less able to carry out its mission.
I think that's an important consideration.
The next step is in the hand of the IESG.
Harald
Attachment:
pgpPjM78xC1ai.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf