Skickat från min iPhone > 4 maj 2019 kl. 06:38 skrev John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>: > > Adam, > > The necessity for this move saddens me, but I agree with those > who favor this action. I would add to your list the suggestion +1 Well put John > that much of the July 2018 thread on the IETF list that contains > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fo_yF-u0B7UE0qPGSurPilbGbak > Is off-topic for the IETF (that particular message appears to > call for Android software modifications) and some of those > messages, including > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/zs19Nz1KJmfAmKHPx4pX2hXaYwk > includes claims about person injuries that are even more clearly > off-topic for the IETF. Continuing that discussion after being > told by several people, both on and off list clearly changes the > S/N ratio on the IETF list in negative directions and is hence > disruptive. > > Other messages, while they contain some content that might be > relevant to the IETF, also contain considerable (well over 50%) > content that is irrelevant and, by its nature, disruptive. See, > for example, > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FE6vkL_Ego7-DDP-YhjeXn_FCJQ > or > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ohn5gHK3SU3HObz_axDzW3lS1qY > where the latter contains even less IETF-relevant material. > > My point in mentioning the above is to point out that the > problem behavior has been going on for rather a long time and on > multiple IETF lists. > > best, > john > > > > --On Friday, May 3, 2019 16:08 -0500 Adam Roach > <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The ART area directors have received a request from several >> individuals to >> revoke the posting rights to IETF mailing lists of Pradeep >> Kumar Xplorer as >> per the procedures in BCP 83 (RFC 3683). >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and >> solicits final >> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to >> the ietf@xxxxxxxx >> mailing lists by 2019-03-17. Exceptionally, comments may be >> sent to >> iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >> Subject line to allow >> automated sorting. >> >> PLEASE NOTE: Comments should be limited to the criteria >> described in BCP 83, >> specifically in this case whether the person has posted >> "discussion of >> subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings, activities, or >> technical >> concerns" or "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the >> general subject", >> and whether such posts have had an effect to "disrupt the >> consensus-driven >> process." In particular, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO MAKE COMMENTS >> ABOUT THE >> POSTER'S STATE OF MIND WHILE MAKING THESE POSTS OR WHETHER THE >> POSTS HAVE SOME >> BROADER MEANING OUTSIDE OF THE IETF PROCESS. The questions >> posed by this Last >> Call are whether the posts are off-topic, whether the posts >> disrupt the >> process, and whether the PR-action is the appropriate remedy. >> >> The following is an incomplete sampling of messages that have >> been identified >> as being potentially off-topic and disrupting: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/CneRIG1vjNNbFY >> PW-z7mtUXe8Ik >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/ZOczccDHvHHpD6 >> XaYc_UFLTPrYQ >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/hErM9rufrp_qaj >> 8CAHF96itK84I >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/1r0EIqqHCkDgwR >> 32w3MuBSWrOc0 >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-auth/-KvTfv1sl6Z7QS >> KBHNaKg0UYw28 >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/kT3lDkJvhKeFXSVZaJaX >> fyXNT24 >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/iqARH4h-OkNdQ7eeziUl >> 66sLFqk >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/k46FrrbEaYzCkKetjL1S >> apZ6Jq0 >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/7eovYBGvWq-yLmlUgIBC >> X2fqST0 >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/Xw3anU69JWowFQvpbA8N >> NVsCASI >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/CDwYKiVjwbVNJXD_OyYF >> c2K91q4 >> >> /Adam Roach >> > > > >
