On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette
committee, during the committee is considering a request, and
after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of
scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such
as this one which plague the IETF list.
In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser
will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette
committee, which means that after inventing this entire
mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony.
I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the
decision I can accept it and move on. That's another reason why I think it
should be an unmanipulated membership.
That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about
someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to
make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely
determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to
do so?
I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular,
although I do have some private opinions on this matter. The question
is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner?
It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and
assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an
exploit said security hole. If this is considered irresponsible when
designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when
designing organizational policies?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf