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

> 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.
"from time-to-time" is not really what I think anyone is talking about here.
Nobody's perfect. Are you concerend about this happening to you? Probably
not. Are we going to start taking this action against the people who send
"unsubscribe" straight to the mail list? Probably not. From time-to-time is
quite different from frequnetly/dependably. Arguing that something could be
misused by contorting it is fine, but that's what oversite and checks and
balances are for.

> IMO, a 30-day suspension is adequate for most purposes, and 
> RFC 3934 provides that there may be subsequent 30-day 
> suspensions if there are further instances of abuse.
I definitely suggested the ability of wg chairs and perhaps the IETF list
Seargent At Arms the ability to enforce "colling off" periods to solve
problems of heated debate escalating unecessarily, and still think it's a
good idea. But 30 days does nothing to someone who's shown that they will
bog down the process, or specifically, the situations that this document
purports to try to solve.

> I would also like to see the mechanism described in RFC 3683 
> formally deprecated, probably by moving RFC 3683 to 
> "Historic".  However, it seems clear that some people do 
> support the existence and use of this mechanism, so I don't 
> know that we could reach IETF consensus to do that.
No doubt if it results in unsatisfactory results it will be easy. Surely if
people decide we spend more time talking about the issue then dealing with
the problem it will be easy. If people generally agree that someone is a
problem and that their posting rights should be restricted, who is any one
person to say it's not right because of their personal issues with the
process. Consensus can't be the answer only when it's convinient. It is what
it is.

-Tom

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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