I do not support the action against Jefsey Morfin, because the outcome would facilitate a ban on all IETF lists without specific cause and without recourse. I am not in a position to judge the correctness of a ban on the lists explicitly cited but I do not believe that we have witnessed behavior that is targeted against the IETF per se, and so a blanket ban is inappropriate. In my view a full 3683 action would be too harsh. I am not sympathetic to the argument that says we only have a large hammer so we MUST use it because we can't do nothing. If those who would exclude Jefsey from certain lists feel that repeated 30 day bans are too much work, I suggest they draft a new process that would allow them to create longer bans on specific lists. Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; "Scott Hollenbeck" <sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; <iesg@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Does the IESG have the authority to do less than 3683? > fwiw, my feeling is that if we did bend the rules that way, > we'd be at strong risk of an appeal. I think the rules are > in a bit of a mess. > > Brian > > Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>>>"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > John> For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that, > > John> before there was RFC 3683, there was a notion, not only of > > John> 30 day suspensions, but of exponential (or other rapidly > > John> increasing series) back-off. If someone is being severely > > John> disruptive on a particular list, it would seem reasonable to > > John> me for the relevant AD to authorize a 60 day suspension if a > > John> 30 day one is ineffective, a 120 day suspension if that is > > John> ineffective, and so on. The nature of that arithmetic is > > John> such that someone could, with sufficient repeated disruptive > > John> behavior, find themselves rather effectively banned for the > > John> effective duration of a WG. If the IESG believes that a > > John> formal RFC3933 experiment is needed to do that, then let's > > John> write down and run that experiment. But, until we have > > John> tried the above --and any other plausible actions we can > > John> think of-- let's save the 3683 actions for those whose > > John> behavior is more clearly inappropriate and non-constructive > > John> than Jefsey's. > > > > > > Hi, John. The prevailing view on the IESG seems to be that the > > combination of RFC 3683 and 3934 actually took away our ability to > > approve suspensions greater than 30 days but short of a PR action. > > Others seem to believe that while we might want to fix that, we should > > deal with this matter first. > > > > can you see a reading of 2418 as amended, 3934 and 3683 together that > > give the IESG the power to approve a longer suspension? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf