----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
To: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric(_dot_)fleischman(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com>
Cc: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>;
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:10:50 -0700, "Fleischman, Eric"
I'm sorry to enter this fray, but I'd like to point out that while I
respect Todd's request to know who is accusing him and why, the rest of
us don't need to be copied that information. In fact, it is better that
we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to the complainer(s).
Eric - then talk to the SOA's - they posted the commentary as public
notice - I just responded to it.
Discipline is a difficult task to do fairly and because of this there
are many advantages in respectfully permitting the protagonists to have
privacy during key parts of the process.
As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past (I suspended him from a
WG mailing list, and was the target of an appeal to the IESG by him), I
think he's right in this case.
Scary thought that eh?
In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary
action needs to be *perceived* as fair. That may not be as much of an
issue here -- the public record of Todd's postings is appallingly clear --
but I think we do need to follow due process.
I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on their own volition,
Cool - when was this capability specifically placed into the IETF's Charter
or the Job Description of the SOA? Who is accountable for that SOA's actions
(including the party that appoints them?) And can they create policy to 'fit
the moment' and if so how?
if they do they should say so; that gives the community grounds to judge
And it also provides specific recourse in Courts against the IETF and that
individual and their Sponser.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Ietf mailing list