On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 21:03:25 +0200, Harald Alvestrand
<harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no> wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
From my place in the galleries, it appears to me that there have
been a very small number of attempts to assert the 3683
mechanism. Each has resulted in a firestorm of debate that has
arguably caused far more traffic, noise, and disruption to the
relevant mailing lists than the individual who was contemplated
to be banned. Control mechanisms that are intended to protect
mailing lists from disruption but that cause far more disruption
than they cure --at least for the lengthy period that they are
under consideration, discussion, and appeal -- are not within my
definition of a good mechanism. YMMD, of course.
From my place, there have been exactly 2 attempts to assert the 3683
mechanism.
One did not raise much of a controversy. The other one did.
I've been told by an AD not to try to invoke 3683 -- the IESG doesn't like
the mechanism, and finds it unpleasant (which to me translates to "it
generates a *lot* of noise on the IESG list when someone tries to invoke
it").
I agree with John that we need some mechanism for dealing with
obstructive, insulting posters. I'm not certain what that should be,
since almost by definition people so devoid of social and organizational
graces as to merit formal sanctions will exhaust every possible procedural
mechanism to deal with any suspension. (Disclaimer: I was the target of
an unsuccessful appeal after I used 2418 to suspend someone from a mailing
list.)
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf