do not alter the public record. it is a public record, not edited
history. this is a primrose path.
Randy, you are right, and I have as much antipathy to spring flowers as the next
person, but...
When I look at
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/removal-of-an-internet-draft.html I see a
similar issue handled "in exceptional circumstances" to protect the IETF from
litigation, to protect individuals from extreme forms of targeting, and to
protect the reputation of the IETF.
I think the Ombudsperson should have this remedy available. I would not expect
it to be applied as a regular remedy against cases of argumentum ad hominem, but
I think the Ombudsperson should be allowed to remove exceptionally crass
material.
Yes, the conflict with freedom of speech is very concerning. But there is surely
a line here somewhere. Suppose someone takes a photo of me naked emerging from
my hotel shower and posts it on the WEIRDS mailing list?
So, what I want to work towards is language that lets the Ombudsperson know that
this remedy is available, but that it is not expected to be applied casually.
I think that, just as we did for the IESG statement on I-Ds, we should take
advice (in this case from counsel and the IAOC) before forming a solid policy.
To my knowledge two emails have been removed from the general archive in the
last five years on the direction of the IESG (Jari and Russ may have better
recollection). They were very offensive personal attacks.
It is right that we should debate this.
Cheers,
Adrian