Let me preface this by saying that I have no direct interest in ietf-languages
or LTRU, nor do I have technical expertise in this area. I have also been on a
temporary hiatus from active participation in IETF.
That said, I overcome my usual reluctance to engage in IETF list discussions to
oppose this action.
Unlike the previous matter of an individual who clearly engaged in threats and
ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being an attempt to
suppress a minority viewpoint. Minority viewpoints need to be heard,
regardless of whether the minority is a minority of one, and regardless of how
persistent and how (in)articulate the minority may be. This does not mean that
the chair cannot find consensus against the minority view. However, it strikes
me as an abuse of process to revoke posting rights because the majority is
tired of hearing the minority opinion.
Mr. Morfin has been accused of straying into "off-topic" postings. I cannot
judge from the examples presented whether this is the case. However, I observe
that setting WG scope can serve a constructive purpose in allowing the group to
maintain focus by avoiding peripheral issues, or it can be a way of biasing the
agenda toward a particular result, of ignoring important issues or of
Having been both in majorities and in minorities over the past 20 years or so,
I know that process protection for minority rights is frustrating to the
majority. I also recognize that the minority is sometimes right. Patient
negotiation, no matter how difficult or time consuming, is the best remedy.
I urge the IESG to give Mr. Morfin the benefit of the doubt.
Ietf mailing list