let me put it this way:
Changing the rules in the middle of the process is Just Plain Stupid. We've
done that too many times to count.
We can return to our experience with the process once this round is over,
and may choose to revisit the set of options we have and see if we can add
some - but I think it's totally inappropriate to invent new options in the
middle of a discussion about a specific action.
Nevertheless, I'll respond to some of your specific points....
--On fredag, januar 20, 2006 11:34:35 -0500 Sam Hartman
Harald> This is a waste of time, resources and the goodwill of the
Harald> people who contribute constructively.
Now I'm sure we all agree that it is worth some frustration for
I'd appreciate it if you'd help me try and find the appropriate level
For me personally, that level was passed after reading approximately 300
Jefsey Morfin postings and finding no way to have a dialogue with him.
My Jefsey collection is now up to 900 posts since the start of 2005.
Would six month suspensions instead of 30 day suspensions give you
enough time during a suspension to avoid driving people away and to
make it likely that you would not be too frustrated to run the lists?
Maybe. But what benefit comes to the IETF from that change?
What about suspending Jefsey from just the ietf-langugages list and
possibly the ltru list?
Would that be a reasonable compromise?
My answer: No.
If not, why not?
Jefsey has shown no tendency to change his ways. He's posted on
ietf-languages, ltru, the IETF list, the IDN list, the pesci-discuss list
and the architecture-discuss list. He claims to have been a low-layer
network engineer; there's no telling where he'll choose to turn up next.
When he turns up, and behaves as he's always done, we've got two
- The process has to be followed. Private warning, public warning, short
suspension, 30-day suspension, appeal for PR-action to the IESG, IESG
decision-making, suspension. We're talking about 6 months between the time
*everyone* realizes that he's disruptive and the time he's actually
suspended for any long period.
- The PR-action is present, global, and can be referred to. The listadmin
realizes that Jefsey is being disruptive, and suspends him.
Now which of these two processes results in the volunteers who run mailing
lists and working groups being less frustrated and having more energy to
give to the IETF's real work?
I realized this a bit after replying to your previous message: The idea
that a PR-action will result in Jefsey being banned from input to the IETF
process, and the IETF process missing useful input as a result, had a
hidden assumption: That listadmins would suspend Jefsey in a situation
where he had useful input to give.
If Jefsey were to change his ways, and contribute in ways that were useful
and non-disruptive, I'm pretty sure listadmins would let him go on posting,
even though the PR-action is in effect. Why turn away useful input?
But I don't see why we should have to go through this painful process for
every single list that is being affected by the same individual.
I do realize that some have questioned whether the IESG has the
authority to make such a narrowly scoped suspension.
It is very clear that the community could choose to grant the IESG
this authority in the form of a BCP. I can make some arguments about
why the IESG has the authority today, although I would describe them
I would, too.
Ietf mailing list