Dear IESG,
I'm writing to appeal an AD decision to ban me from posting to the
Atompub mailing lists. The text of the original appeal is included
below.
Please keep in mind that this message comes from someone who has put a
lot of effort into the WG activities, edited the only successful
product of the WG (RFC4287), and written the I-D that makes up a large
part of the current WG protocol draft. I am not a disruptive loony.
I'm told these two messages are the problem:
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04700.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04709.html
The behavior I describe in those messages has gotten the better of me
in the past, and I've lost my temper on-list. I agree that can't be
permitted, but that is not what happened in this case. What I did was
describe the actions of WG members, and the way in which they are
gaming the IETF process. The chair then (publicly) suspended my
posting privileges.
In the conversations since, I observe that no one has questioned the
accuracy of my remarks, and since the remarks are accurate, there is
no WG process to disrupt--it has already failed. Publicly muzzling me
won't change that, and is certainly inappropriate.
Please don't file a PR Action on me for telling the truth =),
Robert Sayre
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Sayre <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: Mar 15, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Rob Sayre banned from posting to the lists for 30 days
To: Scott Hollenbeck <shollenbeck(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com>, Ted Hardie
<hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
Cc: Tim Bray <Tim(_dot_)Bray(_at_)sun(_dot_)com>, Paul Hoffman
<phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
Dear Scott and Ted,
Paul Hoffman has banned me from both Atom lists for "ad hominem
attacks", and I am writing to appeal his decision. Paul has banned me
once before, a decision I did not appeal (I was unacceptably rude, but
not without provocation). During the 30 days I was banned, the WG
achieved did pretty much nothing. I only mention this because I
believe it demonstrates that my presence is not the reason for a lack
of WG progress. I posted a bit on one issue about two weeks ago, then
some messages in the last few days.
I believe the two messages he is referring to are included below.
Those messages were brought about by the secretary and the editor of
the draft announcing a conformance test suite that consisted almost
entirely of tests that were not mentioned in the WG draft, insisting
that test failures constituted interop failures, citing the old
"running code" saying, and then had their co-workers respond
enthusiastically to the tests. My feeling is that this action results
in one implementation defining interop, and is an egregious abuse of
their WG positions. Note that said implementation is not for
end-users, but is supposed to embody the specification itself.
I am not sure how I could object to those actions without implicating
individuals in some way, so in that sense, Paul's "ad hominem" remarks
are accurate. In addition, I brought up the fact that I believe this
just the latest episode in a series of WG manipulation on the part of
one or two implementers. Paul, would you like to dispute the fact that
certain WG members were permitted and encouraged to club well-written
and technically-sound proposals for months on end?
I am sure Paul got a lot of off-list heat for the remarks included
below, but there is nothing particularly improper about them. I named
one company by name, and Paul warned me off-list not to raise it
again. In my second message, I did not, but I did identify the exact
behavior that bothered me. I questioned the legitimacy and openness of
the WG. I do not think that constitutes an ad hominem attack. Lastly,
I asserted that the WG had achieved consensus-by-exhaustion. It's easy
to verify this claim by examining the participants that currently
populate the list, and comparing them with the folks that were around
when the atom-protocol list was started, and then comparing those
people with the folks that were around when the atom-syntax list was
started.
It is my opinion that the accuracy of these remarks is the problem,
not the remarks themselves. I believe that publicly banning me from
the list was completely inappropriate.
thanks,
Robert Sayre
On 3/15/06, Paul Hoffman <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org> wrote:
Because of his recent ad hominem attacks on WG members, I have
temporarily suspended Rob Sayre's posting privileges for the two
Atompub WG mailing list for 30 days, as specified in RFC 3934. If you
have questions or comments about this action, please first take them
to Tim and me offline.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Sayre <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: Mar 15, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: This is not the feed validator discussion list
To: James Snell <jasnell(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: Joe Gregorio <joe(_dot_)gregorio(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>, Henry Story
<henry(_dot_)story(_at_)bblfish(_dot_)net>, atom-protocol
<atom-protocol(_at_)imc(_dot_)org>
On 3/15/06, James Snell <jasnell(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 3/15/06, Robert Sayre <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Maybe we should we call it the IBM Publishing Protocol.
Rudeness objection. Please refrain from making any further derogatory
remarks about any specific organization that may or may not be implementing
the atom specs.
Are you seriously denying that people didn't sit here and club things
for months waiting for something they could have more control over?
That makes the IETF look pretty bad, and it makes the output of this
WG the product of consensus by exhaustion.
I find that sort of behavior rude and derogatory, and this latest
demonstration of severe insecurity over an easily revertible
expression of opinion is unsurprising in the context of a group with
no claim to legitimacy or openness.
--
Robert Sayre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf