I completely agree with Noel on every detail of these comments.
And, no, I was not one of the complainers either. :-)
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
[mailto:jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu]
--> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:26 AM
--> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Cc: jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu
--> Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)
-->
--> > From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb(_at_)cs(_dot_)columbia(_dot_)edu>
-->
--> >> it is better that we aren't copied because to do so
--> would be unfair to
--> >> the complainer(s).
-->
--> > As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ...
--> I think he's right
--> > in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary
--> action needs to
--> > be *perceived* as fair. ... I think we do need to
--> follow due process.
-->
--> I'm going to disagree with you on this. My reasoning is
--> that the decision of
--> whether or not to suspend should be based almost entirely
--> on the target
--> person's posts, so the identity (and, indeed, the number) of people
--> complaining is basically irrelevant.
-->
--> The whole concept of "facing your accuser" came about
--> because the accusers
--> usually made factual claims ("I saw Joe steal Frank's
--> car"). Traditionally,
--> people wanted to be able to weigh the truthfulness of such claims by
--> observing the person making the assertion, and observing
--> their response to
--> questioning. In addition, the target might know of some
--> grudge that led the
--> accuser to make a false accusation. In this case, however, there is
--> absolutely no probative value coming from knowing *who* complained.
-->
--> To put it another way, I would hope if several people
--> complained about some
--> reasonable post, the SaA(s) would independently review the
--> post, and if they
--> thought it was reasonable, would take no action, the number
--> or identity of
--> the complainers notwithstanding. The issue is not who
--> complained - the issue
--> is the content of the posts - and that's all.
-->
--> Indeed, any miniscule probative value in knowing who
--> complained is entire
--> outweighed, IMO, by the possibility that making their
--> identities public would
--> result in a campaign of harrassment against them.
-->
--> And no, I was not one of the people who complained privately.
-->
-->
--> > I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on
--> their own volition,
--> > but if they do they should say so
-->
--> I have no probem with the SaA(s) disclosing whether or not
--> they acted
--> entirely on their own bat, in response to complaints, or
--> both. In addition, I
--> have no problem with them disclosing the number (if any) of
--> complainters.
-->
--> However, I strenuously oppose making the names public,
--> because the potential
--> harm in that (possibility for harassment, and also the
--> possibility that
--> less-forthcoming people will sit on their hands rather than
--> complain, if
--> their names have to be made public) far outweighs any
--> possible value in in
--> mking them public. Indeed, it turns out that most police
--> departments actually
--> have anonymous tip lines, for precisely these reasons (and others).
-->
-->
--> If the community decides to do elsewise, I offer myself up
--> as an anonymizing
--> agent for any complaints to the SaA(s); i.e. I will forward
--> any complaints
--> sent to me, as if they were my own, after removing the
--> identity of the
--> former. If I can recruit a few other people to do the same,
--> that will suffice
--> to avoid any issue with one person not being able to
--> complain more than once.
-->
--> Noel
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> 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