On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:10:50 -0700, "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. > As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past (I suspended him from a WG mailing list, and was the target of an appeal to the IESG by him), I think he's right in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary action needs to be *perceived* as fair. That may not be as much of an issue here -- the public record of Todd's postings is appallingly clear -- but I think we do need to follow due process. I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on their own volition, but if they do they should say so; that gives the community grounds to judge their behavior. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf