RE: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

I'm sorry to enter this fray, but I'd like to point out that while I
respect Todd's request to know who is accusing him and why, the rest of
us don't need to be copied that information. In fact, it is better that
we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to the complainer(s).

Discipline is a difficult task to do fairly and because of this there
are many advantages in respectfully permitting the protagonists to have
privacy during key parts of the process.

-----Original Message-----
From: todd glassey [mailto:tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 4:51 PM
To: jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)


Yes actually you do -how does anyone complained against know who is
complaining or why? - if the complaints are not public then the
oversight is not real - its a paper fiction - a lie in print.

Speaking of lies in print this is why IETF complaints are addressed and
penalties for them assessed before the appeal can be resolved - because
the IETF's oversight policy and practice model is ineffective and setup
to allow the IETF to exact whatever penalties it wants from individuals
without the benefit of the appeal or the appeal process.

So YES I want to know specifically who complained.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>; 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Todd,

People got very irritated with this type of messages and actually even

complain why I'm not more strict. I got at the time being already 3 
new complains after this message and obviouly I don't need to justify 
to you

who

is complaining.

Clearly you crossed the line once more, and it took you only a few 
seconds after getting my warning, so just instructed the secretariat 
to ban you

for

two weeks from now.

And please, understand that I don't have anything personal, just

fulfilling

my mission.

Regards,
Jordi, acting as IETF Sergeant-at-arms

De: todd glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:42:30 -0700
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>, 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "Contreras, 
Jorge" <Jorge(_dot_)Contreras(_at_)wilmerhale(_dot_)com>
Asunto: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Who filed the complaints? if you are accusing me of something I have

the right to know of what  I am accused and by whom.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message -----
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>; <>
Cc: <nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Todd,

I've received several complains from people that think that you are

crossing

the limit again and being off-topic with this thread and I 
seriously

agree

with them.

Consequently I warn you. If you keep going on this, I will apply a 
new

ban

(two weeks, as it will be your second one in a very short period of

time).


Regards,
Jordi, acting as IETF Sergeant-at-arms

De: todd glassey <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:37:49 -0700
Para: Theodore Tso <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
CC: "nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, 
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

Hey Ted - the more I thought about this post of yours the more it

annoyed

me. You see - when a WG chair doesn't want someone saying 
something in

their

WG and they control the number of players in that WG, they will 
always control the consensus such as it is.

The point is that there is no where to permanently register a

dissenting

opinion in an effort or IETF program now that you claim that the

charter

for

the IETF(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG mailing list is restricted.

The IETF needs IMHO one general list for everything that doesn't 
fall

under

the rubric/charter/umbrella of some WG and their list, and 
personally

after

NETWORK was shutdown I thought that this was it.

Todd Glassey



----- Original Message -----
From: "Theodore Tso" <tytso(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu>
To: "todd glassey" <tglassey(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net>
Cc: <nea(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 02:39:46PM -0700, todd glassey wrote:

So then Ted are you formally saying that it is inappropriate to

discuss

IETF

operations or its processes on the IETF(_at_)IETF(_dot_)ORG mailing 
list?


If you have a specific and actionable suggestion regarding IETF 
direction, policy, meetings, and procedures, where there is not a

more

appropriate e-mail venue (such as the IPR wg list), then it is 
certainly, appropriate for the IETF list.

Your recent postings, alas, have not met this test.

The problem with the IPR working group is simply that Harald 
kicks

people

off for disagreeing with him or his very limited charter. He 
doesn't

want to

hear about expanding the charter or how these other issues fit 
into

the

IPR

Working Group and in doing so he is violating my and others

participatory

rights as well as our First Amendment rights I believe too.


First Amendment rights only apply when the US Government 
restricts speech.  It does not apply anywhere else.  In general, 
you have been making various legal claims without being a lawyer,

and fairly wild ones which make it very clear that you don't know

what you are

talking

about.  For what it's worth, be advised that I know of know 
legally enforceable "right" that you might have towards 
participating in any IETF forum, and certainly if you persist in 
sounding like someone who does not know what they are talking 
about, no one is required to listen to you, either --- and more 
and more people may in fact decide that it is wise for them to 
exercise their right to ignore you.

Regards,

- Ted



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be 
privileged or

confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be

aware

that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of

this

information, including attached files, is prohibited.



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf





**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
or

confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.



_______________________________________________
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