Re: On PR-actions, signatures and debate

On 7 okt 2005, at 17.56, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> > It's just possible that the threshold might be higher for some
> > than it is for others.
> So which threshold is the "right" threshold?

I think that the offense has to be so egregious that invoking such  
draconian rules is truly a rough consensus - i.e. with very few  
dissenting voices and for the dissenting voices to be such that their  
dissent is not well thought out.  and while full consensus is rarely  
possible, it should be as close to full consensus as possible.
the IETF of late seems to me to be moving ever closer to a top  
dominated group where a few voices have control of all decisions and  
where very little disagreement, especially strong disagreement, is  
allowed. i think this is a bad trend.  to allow for easy suppression  
of dissent, which always sounds strident to those in power (whether  
they happen to be in office or not), is, in my opinion a mistake and   
contributes to that trend.  it leads to a behavior mandate of 'be  
careful of what you say and who you disagree with for it may come  
back to bite you'.  and since there is no real appeal mechanism,  
except for the very brave, for those who feel abused by the system,  
the suppression of dissent becomes even more alarming.
On 6 okt 2005, at 16.51, Melinda Shore wrote:

> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
> the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
> appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
i think that when looking for consensus, it makes sense for multiple  
people to support the statements of someone else.  This is not a  
vote, but rather an indication that something does or does not have  
enough agreement to affect a consensus call.
my normal attitude on this overly active list is to only comment when  
i don't see my viewpoint reflected in someone else's comments - in  
fact that is my attitude vis a vis all IETF lists.  but when a storm  
is gathering and someone must make a consensus evaluation, i think it  
reasonable to send a 'me too' message and to make that message as  
short as possible.
so in this case i was agreeing that i saw no just cause for a PR  
action.  but if i had seen casue, i would probably have argued for  
mutual cause given the provocation and counter provocation of the two  
parties.  however, as i argue above, i don't think this rises to the  
level of requiring application of a draconian response to limit  
expression.
a.


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