Hi. I agree that Jefsey's participation in LTRU and the ietf-languages lists has been problematic. Even by his own admission Jefsey has been engaging in filibustering--a practice that I think we would agree is disruptive. Take a look at his most recent appeal to the IESG (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/jefsey-morfin-appeal.txt ); quoting from that appeal: This is why I chose to give the necessary time to common sense to prevail, in exposing their mistakes in a way they could forced to correct some of them. The democratic method for that is work and filibustering. Filibustering is not pleasant. But it permitted to obtain what users' protection demanded: As such, I agree that we need to adopt a strategy that prevents Jefsey from disrupting our processes excessively. However a PR action is an incredibly huge hammer. If passed, it removes any process barrier to shutting Jefsey out of any IETF process. While this PR action is specifically targeted at the ietf-languages list it would give the person running any IETF list the ability to unilaterally remove Jefsey from that list. Perhaps this is an appropriate measure to take when all of a person's participation are destructive and they have nothing to offer. That's not true for Jefsey. Jefsy has made significant positive contributions to the IETF list. He has worked to describe the perceptions that the IETF, IANA, ICAN, and related entities are creating a US-centric Internet. He has described concerns of global users and how our protocols, including IDN, may not meet user requirements. These concerns are real and parts of them have been worked on by long-standing members of the community. Take a look at RFC 4185 for an example of a concern that Jefsey shares that members of this organization have spent time working on. I personally have found Jefsey's formulations of these concerns enlightening; I think he has significantly helped me understand how the IETF might be perceived and what some user concerns with our protocol might be. I've also found some of his security comments and some of his comments on IETF process issues useful. So, I think it would be inappropriate to apply this hammer in this case. Instead, I propose that we find a tool appropriate for the problem: a way of limiting Jefsey's ability to block progress in areas where he is clearly blocking our work but not preventing him from participating in the IETF. I'd first ask why repeated 30-day suspensions are ineffective. Harald seems to be getting fairly efficient at suspending Jefsey on ietf-languages. I believe he's been suspended on LTRU before. Is Jefsey actually doing much damage there with all these suspensions? If so, why not give Harald and the LTRU chairs the ability to suspend Jefsey for longer? That might involve a new BCP (or a process experiment), but if we determine the existing tools are inadequate then that seems like a reasonable option. How would a six month suspension be insufficient? Do we really need an unlimited suspension to get work done? Finally, if we somehow all convince ourselves that asking chairs to revisit suspending Jefsey every six months is unacceptable then what about creating way to suspend Jefsey from langtags related issues but not other IETF lists? Sure, Jefsey is annoying on the ietf list, but is he really so much worse than me ranting about fairness and openness, Keith ranting about architecture or Dave Crocker ranting about timely standards development that we cannot have a place for him? Speaking as an individual, if I had to pick conversations to have un-had on the IETF list, there are ones higher on my list than Jefsey. Thanks for your consideration, --Sam _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf