Brian - what constitutes 'disrupting the normal conversation of the list' -
disagreeing with the management of the list?.
The issue isn't that I wasn't contributing - it was that the IPR and IP
teams and the IETF process teams WILL NOT LET ME PARTICIPATE because I bring
in non-engineering concerns with their IETF Operation's designs which makes
them look like what they are - engineers instead of what they should be
Operations Research or HR trained people so that they can look at human
dynamics better.
Your problem is that the LIST STRUCTURE of these entities DO NOT WANT ANYONE
ELSE IN THE IETF TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING... What do you think would
happen if a Broadcast Message was sent to the MEMBERSHIP of the IETF saying
that the IPR WG was changing the LEGAL CONSTRAINTS that controlled their
participation and that when it was done they would need to have their
Sponsor's attorney's look it over to make sure it was 'clean' and
appropopriate for them to continue participating under the new rules.
By the way - if this IETF was audited - every one of my complaints would
have been substantiated.
Todd Glassey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: Due process [Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment
(nea)]
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> 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.
I see no failure of due process in the Sergeants At Arms stating that
they have received a number of complaints about messages which were sent
to a couple of thousand people. It isn't as if the complainers were
making an attack on the sender of the messages; they were complaining
that the messages were disrupting normal discussion on the list. Such
complaints don't need to be public in order to be valid.
I don't want to substitute my judgement for that of the Sergeants;
but I think they have done the right thing.
Brian
_______________________________________________
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