Unlike the previous matter of an individual who clearly engaged in
threats and ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being
an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint.
There is a basic difference between preventing the expression of an opinion,
idea or the like, versus preventing what is effectively a denial of service
attack on the conduct of group business.
This difference is massive.
An organization like the IETF absolutely MUST encourage the former. But it
cannot survive any sustained amount of the latter.
Yes, one can no doubt construct all sorts of scenarios that are in a gray area
between the two. Therefore any group that is concerned about permitting -- and
even encouraging -- the former, needs to make any rules against the latter
involve scaling a significant hurdle. In other words, the excesses that
constitute a "violation" need to be huge.
It is difficult to imagine any reasonable person looking at the particulars of
the current case and having even the slightest doubt that things are far, far
beyond any possible gray area.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf