On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:03:25 +0200, Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > > > >From my place in the galleries, it appears to me that there have > > been a very small number of attempts to assert the 3683 > > mechanism. Each has resulted in a firestorm of debate that has > > arguably caused far more traffic, noise, and disruption to the > > relevant mailing lists than the individual who was contemplated > > to be banned. Control mechanisms that are intended to protect > > mailing lists from disruption but that cause far more disruption > > than they cure --at least for the lengthy period that they are > > under consideration, discussion, and appeal -- are not within my > > definition of a good mechanism. YMMD, of course. > From my place, there have been exactly 2 attempts to assert the 3683 > mechanism. > One did not raise much of a controversy. The other one did. > I've been told by an AD not to try to invoke 3683 -- the IESG doesn't like the mechanism, and finds it unpleasant (which to me translates to "it generates a *lot* of noise on the IESG list when someone tries to invoke it"). I agree with John that we need some mechanism for dealing with obstructive, insulting posters. I'm not certain what that should be, since almost by definition people so devoid of social and organizational graces as to merit formal sanctions will exhaust every possible procedural mechanism to deal with any suspension. (Disclaimer: I was the target of an unsuccessful appeal after I used 2418 to suspend someone from a mailing list.) --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf