Hi Eric, I don't really agree with that. I've first the obligation to keep the privacy about any email received in private. Of course, I can always suggest that the people which complained in private speak up in the list, but I don't think that noise will help anyone. If there is a need to review my decision, the body in charge of that "appeal" will have the information about those complains, of course. If we as a community, feel that this should work in a different way, we probably need to document/update the process used by the sergeant-at-arms. Regards, Jordi > De: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@xxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:10:50 -0700 > Para: todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Conversación: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > Asunto: RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > > I'm sorry to enter this fray, but I'd like to point out that while I > respect Todd's request to know who is accusing him and why, the rest of > us don't need to be copied that information. In fact, it is better that > we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to the complainer(s). > > Discipline is a difficult task to do fairly and because of this there > are many advantages in respectfully permitting the protagonists to have > privacy during key parts of the process. > > -----Original Message----- > From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:51 PM > To: jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > > > Yes actually you do -how does anyone complained against know who is > complaining or why? - if the complaints are not public then the > oversight is not real - its a paper fiction - a lie in print. > > Speaking of lies in print this is why IETF complaints are addressed and > penalties for them assessed before the appeal can be resolved - because > the IETF's oversight policy and practice model is ineffective and setup > to allow the IETF to exact whatever penalties it wants from individuals > without the benefit of the appeal or the appeal process. > > So YES I want to know specifically who complained. > > Todd Glassey > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:11 PM > Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) > > >> Todd, >> >> People got very irritated with this type of messages and actually even > >> complain why I'm not more strict. I got at the time being already 3 >> new complains after this message and obviouly I don't need to justify >> to you > who >> is complaining. >> >> Clearly you crossed the line once more, and it took you only a few >> seconds after getting my warning, so just instructed the secretariat >> to ban you > for >> two weeks from now. >> >> And please, understand that I don't have anything personal, just > fulfilling >> my mission. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi, acting as IETF Sergeant-at-arms >> >> >> >> >>> De: todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> >>> Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:42:30 -0700 >>> Para: <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "Contreras, >>> Jorge" <Jorge.Contreras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Asunto: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) >>> >>> Who filed the complaints? if you are accusing me of something I have > >>> the right to know of what I am accused and by whom. >>> >>> Todd Glassey >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <> >>> Cc: <nea@xxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) >>> >>> >>>> Todd, >>>> >>>> I've received several complains from people that think that you are >>> crossing >>>> the limit again and being off-topic with this thread and I >>>> seriously > agree >>>> with them. >>>> >>>> Consequently I warn you. If you keep going on this, I will apply a >>>> new > ban >>>> (two weeks, as it will be your second one in a very short period of > time). >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Jordi, acting as IETF Sergeant-at-arms >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> De: todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:37:49 -0700 >>>>> Para: Theodore Tso <tytso@xxxxxxx> >>>>> CC: "nea@xxxxxxxx" <nea@xxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Asunto: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) >>>>> >>>>> Hey Ted - the more I thought about this post of yours the more it >>> annoyed >>>>> me. You see - when a WG chair doesn't want someone saying >>>>> something in >>> their >>>>> WG and they control the number of players in that WG, they will >>>>> always control the consensus such as it is. >>>>> >>>>> The point is that there is no where to permanently register a > dissenting >>>>> opinion in an effort or IETF program now that you claim that the > charter >>> for >>>>> the IETF@xxxxxxxx mailing list is restricted. >>>>> >>>>> The IETF needs IMHO one general list for everything that doesn't >>>>> fall >>> under >>>>> the rubric/charter/umbrella of some WG and their list, and >>>>> personally >>> after >>>>> NETWORK was shutdown I thought that this was it. >>>>> >>>>> Todd Glassey >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso@xxxxxxx> >>>>> To: "todd glassey" <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: <nea@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:16 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 02:39:46PM -0700, todd glassey wrote: >>>>>>> So then Ted are you formally saying that it is inappropriate to >>> discuss >>>>> IETF >>>>>>> operations or its processes on the IETF@xxxxxxxx mailing list? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a specific and actionable suggestion regarding IETF >>>>>> direction, policy, meetings, and procedures, where there is not a > more >>>>>> appropriate e-mail venue (such as the IPR wg list), then it is >>>>>> certainly, appropriate for the IETF list. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your recent postings, alas, have not met this test. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the IPR working group is simply that Harald >>>>>>> kicks >>>>> people >>>>>>> off for disagreeing with him or his very limited charter. He >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>> want to >>>>>>> hear about expanding the charter or how these other issues fit >>>>>>> into >>> the >>>>> IPR >>>>>>> Working Group and in doing so he is violating my and others >>>>> participatory >>>>>>> rights as well as our First Amendment rights I believe too. >>>>>> >>>>>> First Amendment rights only apply when the US Government >>>>>> restricts speech. It does not apply anywhere else. In general, >>>>>> you have been making various legal claims without being a lawyer, > >>>>>> and fairly wild ones which make it very clear that you don't know > >>>>>> what you are > talking >>>>>> about. For what it's worth, be advised that I know of know >>>>>> legally enforceable "right" that you might have towards >>>>>> participating in any IETF forum, and certainly if you persist in >>>>>> sounding like someone who does not know what they are talking >>>>>> about, no one is required to listen to you, either --- and more >>>>>> and more people may in fact decide that it is wise for them to >>>>>> exercise their right to ignore you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> - Ted >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ietf mailing list >>>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ********************************************** >>>> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >>>> >>>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! >>>> http://www.ipv6day.org >>>> >>>> This electronic message contains information which may be >>>> privileged or >>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the >>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be > aware >>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of > this >>> information, including attached files, is prohibited. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ietf mailing list >>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> >> >> >> >> ********************************************** >> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org >> >> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! >> http://www.ipv6day.org >> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged >> or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the > individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be > aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents > of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf