--On Thursday, 19 January, 2006 20:03 -0500 Sam Hartman
Even by his own admission Jefsey has been engaging in
filibustering--a practice that I think we would agree is
disruptive. Take a look at his most recent appeal to the IESG
quoting from that appeal:
As such, I agree that we need to adopt a strategy that
prevents Jefsey from disrupting our processes excessively.
However a PR action is an incredibly huge hammer. If passed,
it removes any process barrier to shutting Jefsey out of any
IETF process. While this PR action is specifically targeted
at the ietf-languages list it would give the person running
any IETF list the ability to unilaterally remove Jefsey from
Perhaps this is an appropriate measure to take when all of a
person's participation are destructive and they have nothing
That's not true for Jefsey. Jefsy has made significant
positive contributions to the IETF list. He has worked to
describe the perceptions that the IETF, IANA, ICAN, and
related entities are creating a US-centric Internet. He has
described concerns of global users and how our protocols,
including IDN, may not meet user requirements. These concerns
are real and parts of them have been worked on by
long-standing members of the community. Take a look at RFC
4185 for an example of a concern that Jefsey shares that
members of this organization have spent time working on. I
personally have found Jefsey's formulations of these concerns
enlightening; I think he has significantly helped me
understand how the IETF might be perceived and what some user
concerns with our protocol might be.
I have to reluctantly agree with Sam. I'm reluctant because
there are far too many days when I wish Jefsey would just
quietly go away Of course, he is not the only person I'd put on
that list, and I imagine I'm on some similar lists kept by
others, but that is exactly the point and the problem.
I have many wishes about Jefsey and his behavior. I often wish
he would change his tone. I wish he would spend a little more
time trying to understand some of the protocols and operational
and procedural realities (such as the present decision-making
role of the IAB relative to IETF activities, the procedural
relationship of the DNS to other directory services, and so on)
before making loud and repeated assertions about them. And,
when he is told to take particular topics elsewhere, I wish he
would heed that advice.
That said, when he appears to be deliberately filibustering, or
otherwise repeating the same comments over and over again, I see
that as more than adequate justification for enforced time-outs
from the relevant lists. But I'm not convinced that any of this
is evidence of the type of deliberately offensive or abusive
behavior, name-calling, or attempts to create disruption for its
own sake that, in my view, would justify a blanket 3683 action.
For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that, before
there was RFC 3683, there was a notion, not only of 30 day
suspensions, but of exponential (or other rapidly increasing
series) back-off. If someone is being severely disruptive on a
particular list, it would seem reasonable to me for the relevant
AD to authorize a 60 day suspension if a 30 day one is
ineffective, a 120 day suspension if that is ineffective, and so
on. The nature of that arithmetic is such that someone could,
with sufficient repeated disruptive behavior, find themselves
rather effectively banned for the effective duration of a WG.
If the IESG believes that a formal RFC3933 experiment is needed
to do that, then let's write down and run that experiment.
But, until we have tried the above --and any other plausible
actions we can think of-- let's save the 3683 actions for those
whose behavior is more clearly inappropriate and
non-constructive than Jefsey's.
Ietf mailing list