On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:27:02AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision. > > I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the > already known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2) > perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to > him but he has no intention of listening to us. > > I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that > is CC'd to campaigns@xxxxxxx straight to the bit bucket. The fact > that it is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign > page rather than one noise maker does not make it any less > disruptive. Actually, to be fair, I don't think this can be laid at the feet of the FSF. Todd Glassey replied to a message approximately 3 months old with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly contorted, and at worst total nonsense. (For example, requirements for a claim of tortious interference of prospective economic advantage, or TIPA, are quite specific, and almost certainly don't apply; people who are interested are invited to google the term for themselves, and/or pay a lawyer for a legal opinion). Whether they are or are not, Todd's legal thoughts make sense, *discussion* of these sorts of legal matters are outside the bounds of the IETF. Applying law to facts requires a law degree to in order to give legal advice and form a formal legal opinion, and most of the people on the IETF mailing list are not lawyers. So while that message was not appropriate for the IETF list, it's not fair to blame this on campaigns@xxxxxxxx - Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf