Hi Harald, > - About five people send thank-you notes, and wonder whether > the IESG will get off its butt and allow him to be suspended > permanently, usually accompanied with ruminations about > whether it makes any sense to participate in an organization > that is so completely ineffective in handling disruptive persons How do you respond to those five people? Do you tell them that e-mail filters were created for a reason? Do you ask them how hard it is to hit 'd' (or equivalent) once a month? Do you point out the inherent tension between running an "open" organization and choosing who can participate based on the quality of their contributions? Or do you encourage those people to be upset about the IESG's supposed ineffectiveness in resolving this issue, which you seem to consider a black-and-white issue while I, personally, do not? Personally, I consider this to be a very complex and difficult issue. We have an RFC that does allow the IESG to indefinitely suspend the IETF posting rights of an individual, and it provides some guidance for making that decision. However, it is not a very precise document, and it is clearly open to interpretation regarding both the definition of disruptive behaviour and whether an individual needs to be _intentionally_ engaging in disruptive behaviour in order to have has his/her posting privileges suspended. Personally, I am just as tired at this point of reading your poorly-founded and repeated accusations against Jefsey as I am of reading Jefsey's posts on this subject. However, I'd like to address a few of the issues that you raised about one of Jefsey's posts, in your recent message, in the hope of helping you to understand that you might not be entirely objective about Jefsey's contributions at this point. > - There isn't a common concept of "kitchen" between America > and France (as far as I know completely stupid) I would be willing to yield to Jefsey on this one, as he has spent much more time in France than I have. In fact, I am pretty sure that I have never been in a kitchen in France... However, I did take U.S. high school French, and I was taught that the word for "kitchen" in U.S. English translates to "cuisine" in French, but that the word "cuisine" in French can translate to "kitchen", "cook", or "a style of food" in English. So, I am not quite sure that there is a direct translation between the English and French words for "kitchen"... I'd have to ask a French person to be sure, though. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that we all have some common Idea (in the Platonic sense) of a room in which one cooks dinner (although some of us might call it "supper"). If you are concerned that Jefsey's statement about kitchens is somehow damaging misinformation, perhaps you could ask Jefsey to clarify what he means or provide a reference? Or you could ask other French natives to comment? On the other hand, if you just think that Jefsey may be slightly mistaken (confusing a lack of clean translation between two words as an indication that we do not have a shared concept), why not just ignore it, like you would if anyone else made a similar mistake? > - There are languages that use the same word for blue and > green (as far as I know false) I googled for "language blue green" and the first hit (Wikipedia) says: "The English language makes a distinction between blue and green, but some languages, such as Vietnamese or Tarahumara usually do not use separate words for green and refer to that colour using a word that can also refer to yellow or to blue. In Vietnamese, blue and green are denoted by xanh; blue is specifically described as "xanh like the sky" and green as "xanh like the leaves". It is sometimes said that Japanese does not distinguish between blue and green either. Modern Japanese does have words for both green (緑 midori) and blue (青い aoi adj.; 青 ao n.). However, ancient Japanese did not have this distinction: the word midori only came into use in the Heian period, and at that time (and for a long time thereafter) midori was still considered a shade of ao. Educational materials distinguishing green and blue only came into use after World War II, during the Occupation: thus, even though most Japanese consider them to be green, the word ao is still used to describe certain vegetables, apples and vegetation. However, most other objects - a green car, a green sweater, and so forth - will generally be called midori. Welsh has different boundaries than English regarding blue and green. The word glas is usually translated as 'blue'. It can also refer, variously, to the colour of the sea, of grass, or of silver. The word gwyrdd is the standard translation for 'green'. Glas (same spelling) is, comparably, the translation for "green" in Irish, with specific reference to plant hues of green; other shades would be referred to as uaine. In Irish, gorm is the word for "blue" - the first part (gor(m)) pronounced as in the Welsh gwyr(dd)." Now, I don't personally care, but it seems that you may have been poorly informed in this particular case. > - That ISO 11179, a six-part, 200-page standard for "how to > run a registry" > available in English only, is somehow going to make the IETF > internationalization efforts be much more conceptually correct I have looked at this document briefly, and it does seem to introduce some interesting formal concepts and terms related to registry operation. While I don't always have a lot of patience for formalism myself, there are certainly people who believe that the IETF would benefit from more formalism in many areas. In particular, people have rather often introduced ISO terminology and formal concepts in the network management space for concepts such as operational and administrative state. While we might argue about whether this is a good approach, these suggestions are not usually considered to be out-of-scope or intentionally disruptive. I do think that Jefsey operates from a misconception about the IETF's role in DNS and registry management, and that some of his comments and advice would be better directed at ICANN. But, being confused about the division between the IETF and ICANN in this area is not uncommon. In fact, I'm not 100% sure that I understand that division completely. I have to admit that, at times, I find Jefsey's posts long and hard-to-understand. There are many times when I don't read to the end of them, but the same can be said for some of John Klensin's posts, and I certainly don't want to see John removed from any of the lists I am on -- in fact, I'd be glad to see him participate more! I have found that people from some cultures (France, my own Irish heritage, MIT :-)) tend to be more long-winded than others, and I think that we should try to be patient with that. I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of that up to the fact that he is a non-native English speaker who is trying to make himself understood, and so I try to be patient with that, too. What I have not found in Jefsey's posts to the IETF list is any _intent_ to disrupt the IETF process. Nor have I found relentless ad hominem attacks against individuals or enough off-topic information to warrant serious action against him. The biggest well-founded offense that Jefsey seems to be perpetrating is his continued attempt to raise out-of-scope topics (such as IDN) on the ietf-languages list. I can understand why you are tired of dealing with that. However, I have not decided (as in, I have not yet made up my mind and would like further input from others on this topic, particularly those who have been affected by Jefsey's actions) whether that behaviour is sufficiently disruptive to the IETF to warrant an indefinite suspension of all of Jefsey's IETF posting rights. Margaret _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf