Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with [censored]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jordi,
At 15:01 22-10-2013, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I may have worded out too quickly my email, and actually looks like it was
more important for my decision the anonymity issue vs the off-top
question, but is still my opinion that this address must be banned.

We could take a decision on future anonymous postings, if required, I'm
always pro-privacy, but I don't think this is applicable in IETF works,
and this include exploders. Again this is my personal point of view.

There was a decision to ban (see above) an email address because of two messages sent to the mailing list. I read the mailing list archive and did not find any warning. The advice given was:

  "If you decide to identify yourself, as the rest of the posters, and be
   on-topic, you will be allowed to post again."

I read the quoted text (see above). I cannot tell which part of it is a personal opinion and which part is the opinion of the sergeant-at-arms. The decision comes out as "I don't like what you said. The explanation for my decision might not be that good but I already made up my mind". The rest of the posters do not identify themselves unless a person considers that [local-part]@gmail.com conveys any meaningful information.

Regards,
-sm




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]