Noel,
I think you may have bitten into a bear-trap. :-)
First, the site you cite speculates that <someone> is
the "author" of this note. That may be the case, but there
is no evidence - contained at that site - to support that
speculative assertion. It certainly is possible, maybe even
very likely, that the letter originated at that <someone>'s
direct request or complaint. It may even have been the case
that the same <someone> had a direct hand in the phrasing the
words used in the "letter" - but all of that is speculative.
We need more direct evidence that this <someone> actually did
"author" the "letter" in question, before we should act as if
we are convinced.
Second, the "letter" complains not about something that
<someone else> said, but something that <someone else> was
doing. Specifically, it appears to me, that <someone else> is
accused of trying to effectively silence the original <someone>.
I believe that responding to a specific action of this
sort is absolutely consistent with a belief in the right to
be heard.
Which is a good segue into one of your other points: I
absolutely agree that the IETF is not here to provide free
speech. However, the IETF MUST be an open forum in which
people from different cultural and corporate backgrounds can
be heard (as long as they can make even a weak case for the
relevance of what they are saying) - when it comes to how we
write protocols and how this process and effort is going to
impact on them.
We can't just create a cluster of "good guys" and go
off into hall-way meetings to make decisions that affect
many millions of people and many billions of dollars in the
businesses and economies of the whole world. The "bad guys"
also have a right to be heard - at least to the extent that
they only want to be heard.
I think the problem is that a lot of people want to
send a message to a specific individual that they have
"heard" him enough. And the only hammer lying near-by that
is big enough to send that message is RFC 3683. In this
case, this is definitely not the right thing to do.
Use the tool that was intended for this purpose. If
it doesn't work, then fix it. Don't just pick up the next
bigger hammer without regard for the message that everyone
else is going to get.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
--> On Behalf Of jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
--> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:18 PM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
--> Subject: Re: Against "PR-action against Jefsey Morfin"
-->
--> > From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
-->
--> > Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
--> > representing minority positions should not be prevented from
--> > expressing it
-->
--> OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with
--> defending someone who
--> has tried to get people penalized for saying what they
--> think? It seems to me
--> that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to
--> say whatever he
--> wants, but others can't?
-->
--> I refer you to the most interesting:
-->
--> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1033
-->
--> especially where it says things like "Reuters, my employer,
--> received the
--> following message today" and "'We will contact tomorrow the
--> Reuters legal
--> department in Paris we will then copy and ask an
--> acknowledgment from.'" (And
--> anyone who thinks that message to Reuters was not an
--> attempt to create trouble
--> for someone with their employer is being deliberately obtuse.)
-->
--> Noel
-->
--> PS: The IETF is *not* here to provide free speech. It's
--> here to write
--> protocols. Speech is subsidiary to that goal.
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf