Nicholas,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 05:46:33PM -0700, Nicholas Staff wrote:
David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the
IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts.
I first sent a message on the dnsop mail list that most people would
interpret as a clear warning to behave better or face the
consequences. However, considering earlier misunderstandings, I sent
him a private message to make sure he fully understood what I was
telling him.
Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it
was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone
who had a differing technical opinion.
He did two things: He sent another inflammatory message to the dnsop
mail list in which he again attacked a well-known organization while
he was just told to refrain from such attacks.
In addition, he forwarded my private message to the IETF mail list.
However, he not just forwarded my private messsage, he added simular
accusations as the ones in his earlier messages to the dnsop mail
list.
You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another
abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that
basically correct?
No, it was not his complaint as he did not sent a complaint. It was
the fact that he used his messages to repeat the same accusations that
he was warned not to repeat.
If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a
complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a
reason for retribution?
I did not send my request to the IESG just because he voiced his
opinion or filed a complaint. I sent my request, because, among
others, his comments were out of scope for the dnsop working group, he
voiced his opinion in a totally unprofessional manner and repeated
this behavior on two different mail lists right after he was warned.
I hope this helps to clarify the events.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf