I could say more, but John said what I needed to say, better than I would have.
I find this appropropriate.
Best regards, of course.
I find this appropropriate.
Best regards, of course.
Spencer
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 11:39 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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
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
>
