Since this has been a touchy process subject lately, I must correct an error in the appeal: the AD (me) did not decide to ban anyone. I decided to uphold a decision made by one of the atompub working group chairs. Since my decision is being appealed, and it was not included in the appeal to the IESG, I have copied it here for completeness. -Scott- ---------- From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:16 AM To: 'Robert Sayre'; Ted Hardie Cc: Tim Bray; Paul Hoffman; 'Lisa Dusseault'; sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Rob Sayre banned from posting to the lists for 30 days Robert, I just reviewed the recent list messages, Paul's note announcing the suspension, and the text of your appeal. These two messages caught my eye: http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04700.html http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04709.html I must also note that you said that "Paul's "ad hominem" remarks are accurate" in your appeal. While I can understand your frustration I have to agree that both messages above are essentially attacks on the motives other working group members. In isolation I believe they would be worthy of a warning, but given that warnings and suspensions have already happened I must concur with Paul that a suspension of posting privileges is appropriate. The appeal is denied. -Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sayre [mailto:sayrer@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:20 AM > To: iesg@xxxxxxxx; IETF discussion list > Subject: Appeal of AD Decision to uphold Atompub ban > > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf