Let me preface this
by saying that I have no direct interest in ietf-languages or LTRU, nor do I
have technical expertise in this area. I have also been on a
temporary hiatus from active participation in IETF.
That said, I
overcome my usual reluctance to engage in IETF list discussions to oppose this
action.
Unlike the previous
matter of an individual who clearly engaged in threats and
ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being an attempt to
suppress a minority viewpoint. Minority viewpoints need to be heard,
regardless of whether the minority is a minority of one, and regardless of how
persistent and how (in)articulate the minority may be. This does not mean
that the chair cannot find consensus against the minority view. However,
it strikes me as an abuse of process to revoke posting rights because the
majority is tired of hearing the minority opinion.
Mr. Morfin has
been accused of straying into "off-topic" postings. I cannot judge
from the examples presented whether this is the case. However, I observe that
setting WG scope can serve a constructive purpose in allowing the group to
maintain focus by avoiding peripheral issues, or it can be a way of biasing the
agenda toward a particular result, of ignoring important issues or of
suppressing dissent.
Having been both in
majorities and in minorities over the past 20 years or so, I know that process
protection for minority rights is frustrating to the majority. I also
recognize that the minority is sometimes right. Patient negotiation, no
matter how difficult or time consuming, is the best remedy.
I urge the IESG to
give Mr. Morfin the benefit of the doubt.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf