Re: New lists (was: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against [...])

i don't spend much time on the ietf these days; however, as the  
author of 3683, i've received enough emails asking for comment, to  
warrant a brief reply. this reply is not specifically directed to  
margaret, she just has the misfortune of having authored the last  
email in the thread that has arrived on my desktop.
by the way, although in some circles 3683 is known as "the patriot  
act of the ietf", rumors that a copy of 3683 was seen on the grassy  
knoll, is just that, rumors.

> I do have some serious concerns regarding RFC 3683, especially as  
> it is currently being discussed...
> Personally, I think that the mechanism described in RFC 3683 is an  
> awfully large hammer.  I don't feel comfortable with the fact that  
> we have crafted this hammer, nor with the fact that we might  
> actually use it.   Use of this mechanism against an individual  
> could be detrimental to that individual's reputation and/or to his  
> or her career.  I am particularly uncomfortable with the idea that  
> we might consider unpopular, mis-guided, insistent, frequent and/or  
> hard-to-understand posts to be an abuse of the IETF consensus  
> process, as I am quite certain that I have fallen into many of  
> those categories from time-to-time.  I am also personally appalled  
> by the fact that anyone would publicly agitate for use of this  
> mechanism on the IETF discussion list.
considerable thought went into 3683 to balance the open nature of the  
community with the need to make progress. like most compromises, few  
people are likely to be satisfied, and none are thrilled.
despite a whole lot of emails, i am unaware, as of this writing, of  
any abuses of the 3683 mechanism. there is, of course, a lot of  
healthy discussion.
3683 requires a considered deliberate effort by the decision-making  
bodies to use. it invokes the full process mechanisms of the ietf,  
and, if actioned, it leaves the "undo" to the discretion of the iesg.
what goes unsaid about any revocation of posting rights, no matter  
how brief, will inevitably result in the full process mechanism -- no  
matter how light a touch one proposes, the cost of enactment will be  
the same, very high.
if the cost is always going to be high, then setting an arbitrary  
"undo" period is unhelpful.
/mtr

ps: 3683 was distasteful to write. it is distasteful to defend, even  
if the defense is merely stating the obvious with respect to human  
nature.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf