I do not support the action against Jefsey Morfin, because the outcome
would facilitate a ban on all IETF lists without specific cause and
without recourse. I am not in a position to judge the correctness of a ban
on the lists explicitly cited but I do not believe that we have witnessed
behavior that is targeted against the IETF per se, and so a blanket ban is
inappropriate.
In my view a full 3683 action would be too harsh.
I am not sympathetic to the argument that says we only have a large hammer
so we MUST use it because we can't do nothing.
If those who would exclude Jefsey from certain lists feel that repeated 30
day bans are too much work, I suggest they draft a new process that would
allow them to create longer bans on specific lists.
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: "Sam Hartman" <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Cc: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>; "Scott Hollenbeck"
<sah(_at_)428cobrajet(_dot_)net>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Does the IESG have the authority to do less than 3683?
fwiw, my feeling is that if we did bend the rules that way,
we'd be at strong risk of an appeal. I think the rules are
in a bit of a mess.
Brian
Sam Hartman wrote:
"John" == John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
John> For whatever it is worth, I want to remind the IESG that,
John> before there was RFC 3683, there was a notion, not only of
John> 30 day suspensions, but of exponential (or other rapidly
John> increasing series) back-off. If someone is being severely
John> disruptive on a particular list, it would seem reasonable to
John> me for the relevant AD to authorize a 60 day suspension if a
John> 30 day one is ineffective, a 120 day suspension if that is
John> ineffective, and so on. The nature of that arithmetic is
John> such that someone could, with sufficient repeated disruptive
John> behavior, find themselves rather effectively banned for the
John> effective duration of a WG. If the IESG believes that a
John> formal RFC3933 experiment is needed to do that, then let's
John> write down and run that experiment. But, until we have
John> tried the above --and any other plausible actions we can
John> think of-- let's save the 3683 actions for those whose
John> behavior is more clearly inappropriate and non-constructive
John> than Jefsey's.
Hi, John. The prevailing view on the IESG seems to be that the
combination of RFC 3683 and 3934 actually took away our ability to
approve suspensions greater than 30 days but short of a PR action.
Others seem to believe that while we might want to fix that, we should
deal with this matter first.
can you see a reading of 2418 as amended, 3934 and 3683 together that
give the IESG the power to approve a longer suspension?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf