Dear IESG, I'm writing to appeal an AD decision to ban me from posting to the Atompub mailing lists. The text of the original appeal is included below. Please keep in mind that this message comes from someone who has put a lot of effort into the WG activities, edited the only successful product of the WG (RFC4287), and written the I-D that makes up a large part of the current WG protocol draft. I am not a disruptive loony. I'm told these two messages are the problem: > http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04700.html > http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04709.html The behavior I describe in those messages has gotten the better of me in the past, and I've lost my temper on-list. I agree that can't be permitted, but that is not what happened in this case. What I did was describe the actions of WG members, and the way in which they are gaming the IETF process. The chair then (publicly) suspended my posting privileges. In the conversations since, I observe that no one has questioned the accuracy of my remarks, and since the remarks are accurate, there is no WG process to disrupt--it has already failed. Publicly muzzling me won't change that, and is certainly inappropriate. Please don't file a PR Action on me for telling the truth =), Robert Sayre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mar 15, 2006 3:48 PM Subject: Re: Rob Sayre banned from posting to the lists for 30 days To: Scott Hollenbeck <shollenbeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx> Dear Scott and Ted, Paul Hoffman has banned me from both Atom lists for "ad hominem attacks", and I am writing to appeal his decision. Paul has banned me once before, a decision I did not appeal (I was unacceptably rude, but not without provocation). During the 30 days I was banned, the WG achieved did pretty much nothing. I only mention this because I believe it demonstrates that my presence is not the reason for a lack of WG progress. I posted a bit on one issue about two weeks ago, then some messages in the last few days. I believe the two messages he is referring to are included below. Those messages were brought about by the secretary and the editor of the draft announcing a conformance test suite that consisted almost entirely of tests that were not mentioned in the WG draft, insisting that test failures constituted interop failures, citing the old "running code" saying, and then had their co-workers respond enthusiastically to the tests. My feeling is that this action results in one implementation defining interop, and is an egregious abuse of their WG positions. Note that said implementation is not for end-users, but is supposed to embody the specification itself. I am not sure how I could object to those actions without implicating individuals in some way, so in that sense, Paul's "ad hominem" remarks are accurate. In addition, I brought up the fact that I believe this just the latest episode in a series of WG manipulation on the part of one or two implementers. Paul, would you like to dispute the fact that certain WG members were permitted and encouraged to club well-written and technically-sound proposals for months on end? I am sure Paul got a lot of off-list heat for the remarks included below, but there is nothing particularly improper about them. I named one company by name, and Paul warned me off-list not to raise it again. In my second message, I did not, but I did identify the exact behavior that bothered me. I questioned the legitimacy and openness of the WG. I do not think that constitutes an ad hominem attack. Lastly, I asserted that the WG had achieved consensus-by-exhaustion. It's easy to verify this claim by examining the participants that currently populate the list, and comparing them with the folks that were around when the atom-protocol list was started, and then comparing those people with the folks that were around when the atom-syntax list was started. It is my opinion that the accuracy of these remarks is the problem, not the remarks themselves. I believe that publicly banning me from the list was completely inappropriate. thanks, Robert Sayre On 3/15/06, Paul Hoffman <phoffman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Because of his recent ad hominem attacks on WG members, I have > temporarily suspended Rob Sayre's posting privileges for the two > Atompub WG mailing list for 30 days, as specified in RFC 3934. If you > have questions or comments about this action, please first take them > to Tim and me offline. > > --Paul Hoffman, Director > --Internet Mail Consortium > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mar 15, 2006 11:57 AM Subject: Re: This is not the feed validator discussion list To: James Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>, Henry Story <henry.story@xxxxxxxxxxx>, atom-protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx> On 3/15/06, James Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3/15/06, Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Maybe we should we call it the IBM Publishing Protocol. > > Rudeness objection. Please refrain from making any further derogatory > remarks about any specific organization that may or may not be implementing > the atom specs. Are you seriously denying that people didn't sit here and club things for months waiting for something they could have more control over? That makes the IETF look pretty bad, and it makes the output of this WG the product of consensus by exhaustion. I find that sort of behavior rude and derogatory, and this latest demonstration of severe insecurity over an easily revertible expression of opinion is unsurprising in the context of a group with no claim to legitimacy or openness. -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf