> As maintainer of these lists, I, Henrik Levkowetz, hereby let it be known
> that I have chosen to extend the posting rights action against
Dean Anderson
> (see http://www4.ietf.org/iesg/pr-action.html) to also apply to
these lists,
> according to the provisions for posting rights actions described
on the above
> referenced web page and the references it mentions.
While this may be technically within the limits of 3683, I don't think
it comports well with the spirit of the document. To recap, the effect
of a PR-Action is that:
o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to
that IETF mailing list removed; and,
o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion,
also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list.
From the rest of the context of the document, I think it's reasonably
clear that the purpose of allowing maintainers of other mailing lists
to remove posting rights is to allow them to quickly respond to
disruptive behavior *on those lists*. In the case of WG or other
discussion lists, this is a reasonably good fit: the
maintainer of the list is generally the chair and so is responsible
for monitoring and facilitating discussion and is well position
to determine whether the subject of a PR action is disruptive.
There have been complaints from recipients of one or more of the mail
lists on tools.ietf.org that received Dean's messages. Henrik is
balancing the time it would take for him to handle such complaints
one-by-one. The point of the RFC 3683 as expressed in the second
bullet above is to prevent disruptive behavior from becoming a denial
of service attack. So in that aspect, I think Henrik has made a
reasonable choice. I'd rather Henrik spend his time on other cool
tools, not handling mail list complaints.
Russ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf