On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
> Free speech is at the core of discussions at IETF and those
> representing minority positions should not be prevented from
> expressing it
OK, I'll bite. How do you reconcile this principle with defending someone who
has tried to get people penalized for saying what they think? It seems to me
that there's a logical contradiction there: Jefsey gets to say whatever he
wants, but others can't?
Jut to explain, my original draft text was larger and I removed some
(most) of its text before posting to ietf list; it may have helped if
I did not do it ... (although I think it was too verbose). The reason
why I left last sentence was actually because I strongly disagree
with idea of baning somebody from entire ietf because of how he's
been advocating his position on one (or two) mail list - that was
the core of that sentence (rather then free speech issue).
In regards to free speech, I understand that certain limitations must
be made in the way we post, so it does not disturb entire process
(i.e. I do have right to free speech, but its bad idea to exercise
that right in the middle of the highway). If I did not remove some
of the other text, it would have been clear that what I was more
concerned with is how these limitations are being put in place and
that precedents offered by PR actions allow what could be described
as "IETF elite" to have even bigger way to control the activities
and to get rid of anyone they do not like and this could lead to
other people not being entirely open for the fear of being banned
(which is what I meant by such actions being against free speech).
I think this is bad idea and PR action should be used very very very
reluctantly and I do not see it as being the right case here.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf