Ted,
One way to deal with the fact that having a fair
and impartial selection process might occasionally get
you a bad egg is to have an equally fair mechanism for
"impeaching" a member of the selected group. If I am
recalling things correctly, isn't that how the same
issue is dealt with in the NomCom process?
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
--> Theodore Ts'o
--> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:00 PM
--> To: Nick Staff
--> Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process
-->
-->
--> 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
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf