I appreciate that Adrian and others do care about not being an elephant in a chinashop. But I see a very serious risk of going the otherway where we crawl around as a mouse in-between concrete monuments and are worried that we (as a mouse) would tilt a 1000 kilo monument. First of all, the PR action is not a blanket ban from all mailing lists. I agree it does allow all IETF related mailing list maintainers to ban JFC, but I trust our mailing list maintainers to not do that without good reason. The only help they get by this PR action is that they do not have to go through a admin process to in fact take action. They get the benefit of the doubt that as soon as JFC starts to send questionale postings (for the list admin to evaluate), that they can then block such postings. If anyone finds that a mailing list maintainer were to ban JFC (or anyone hit by a PR action) for no good reason at all (say even before JFC has made any postings), then I feel we should challenge such a list maitainer. But in case of doubt on appropriate behaviour or misconduct on a list, the list maintainer gets the benefit of the doubt to ban. That is all that this bigger hammer is about. This to prevent a DoS on continuous elaborate discussion if a specific person can or cannot be blocked from a list. I also am VERY MUCH against yet designing a 3rd hammer for sanctions. We are the Internet Engineering TF to engineer the Internet and its protocols. We are not an organisation that wants to be the perfect process-organisation and where we have more mercy/pitty with anyone than even mother Teresa had. So in my view we do NOT want to engineer/have sanctions at a fine granularity of 3, 20, 100, 1000 (where does it stop) different levels. Instead, let us do TECHNICAL WORK .... PLEASE! Or so is my view. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of > Adrian Farrel > Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 14:21 > To: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) > Morfin > > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf