> I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea > that we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, > frequent and/or hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of > the IETF consensus process, as I am quite certain that I have > fallen into many of those categories from time-to-time. "from time-to-time" is not really what I think anyone is talking about here. Nobody's perfect. Are you concerend about this happening to you? Probably not. Are we going to start taking this action against the people who send "unsubscribe" straight to the mail list? Probably not. From time-to-time is quite different from frequnetly/dependably. Arguing that something could be misused by contorting it is fine, but that's what oversite and checks and balances are for. > > IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and > RFC 3934 provides that there may be subsequent 30-day > suspensions if there are further instances of abuse. > I definitely suggested the ability of wg chairs and perhaps the IETF list Seargent At Arms the ability to enforce "colling off" periods to solve problems of heated debate escalating unecessarily, and still think it's a good idea. But 30 days does nothing to someone who's shown that they will bog down the process, or specifically, the situations that this document purports to try to solve. > I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 > formally deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to > "Historic". However, it seems clear that some people do > support the existence and use of this mechanism, so I don't > know that we could reach IETF consensus to do that. No doubt if it results in unsatisfactory results it will be easy. Surely if people decide we spend more time talking about the issue then dealing with the problem it will be easy. If people generally agree that someone is a problem and that their posting rights should be restricted, who is any one person to say it's not right because of their personal issues with the process. Consensus can't be the answer only when it's convinient. It is what it is. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf