So then Ned you are saying that the Management of the IETF can say anything
they want to on a list about several 'supposed' complaints and then act upon
them without any due process or any recourse -
Let me ask, do I annoy you that much that you would be willing to give up
your rights to recourse in a dispute or to even functionally dispute
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ned Freed" <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
To: "Harald Alvestrand" <harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no>
Cc: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
"JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Complaints and complainers (Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network
Endpoint Assessment (nea))
Just FTR (and changing the subject, since this is not about NEA at all):
I agree with the principle that the sergeants-at-arms are obliged to
make up their own minds about whether or not a posting is inappropriate,
and that they are responsible for their own decisions.
Complaints are a means of calling their attention to a situation,
An IETF participant should not have to suffer rants and threats from a
suspended person in his private email inbox just because he commented to
a sergeant-at-arms that he found the person's postings offensive.
I think the sergeants-at-arms have made the right call.
I agree with everything Harald says here. Analogies to court situations
notion of "facing your accuser" are IMO entirely inappropriate. A better
analogy is to the many mechansisms that exist in various other contexts
providing tips, suggestions, recommendations and compliants. In many of
cases anonymity is not only allowed, it is required.
I don't think this is a case where anonymity is absolutely required, but
it is definitely beneficial.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list