Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 7 okt 2005, at 17.56, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:



It's just possible that the threshold might be higher for some
than it is for others.


So which threshold is the "right" threshold?




I think that the offense has to be so egregious that invoking such draconian rules is truly a rough consensus - i.e. with very few dissenting voices and for the dissenting voices to be such that their dissent is not well thought out. and while full consensus is rarely possible, it should be as close to full consensus as possible.

the IETF of late seems to me to be moving ever closer to a top dominated group where a few voices have control of all decisions and where very little disagreement, especially strong disagreement, is allowed. i think this is a bad trend. to allow for easy suppression of dissent, which always sounds strident to those in power (whether they happen to be in office or not), is, in my opinion a mistake and contributes to that trend. it leads to a behavior mandate of 'be careful of what you say and who you disagree with for it may come back to bite you'. and since there is no real appeal mechanism, except for the very brave, for those who feel abused by the system, the suppression of dissent becomes even more alarming.

On 6 okt 2005, at 16.51, Melinda Shore wrote:

Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.

i think that when looking for consensus, it makes sense for multiple people to support the statements of someone else. This is not a vote, but rather an indication that something does or does not have enough agreement to affect a consensus call.

my normal attitude on this overly active list is to only comment when i don't see my viewpoint reflected in someone else's comments - in fact that is my attitude vis a vis all IETF lists. but when a storm is gathering and someone must make a consensus evaluation, i think it reasonable to send a 'me too' message and to make that message as short as possible.

so in this case i was agreeing that i saw no just cause for a PR action. but if i had seen casue, i would probably have argued for mutual cause given the provocation and counter provocation of the two parties. however, as i argue above, i don't think this rises to the level of requiring application of a draconian response to limit expression.

a.


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]