Re: Enough is enough: Intent to file an RFC 3683 against Jefsey Morfin

[John Leslie <john at jlc.net>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:
> 
> Jefsey Morfin has proved himself incapable of engaging in constructive 
> dialogue with the IETF's participants, and has proved to be able to cause 
> the consumption of huge amounts of the IETF's goodwill and energy.

   I don't wish to support Jefsey here: frankly I've given up reading his
posts.

> The community approved RFC 3683. I believe it's time to use it.

   We should be clear on what we're talking about:
] 
] This memo recommends that the IESG also undertake a new type of action,
] termed a PR-action ("posting rights" action).
] 
] A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages
] posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to
] be abusive of the consensus-driven process.  If approved by the IESG,
] then:
] 
] 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.
] 
] Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified
] and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year.
] 
] One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be
] introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual.
] The IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when
] evaluating a new PR-action.  If the posting rights are restored the
] individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing
] lists to have them restored.

   Unfortunately, the criteria for a PR action are a bit vague:
] 
] Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in
] what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the
] consensus-driven process.  Typically, these attacks are made by
] repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or
] otherwise counter-productive.  In contrast, good faith disagreement
] is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process.

   To me, for example, 10,000 breakin attempts per day is merely a
minor nuisance, not beginning to approach "denial of service". To some
of my customers, one pornographic spam per month is enough to deny
them the enjoyment of email.

   Jefsey (last I checked) is frequently off-topic, occasionally
inflammatory, and usually counter-productive. Does this "amount to a
denial-of-service attack"?

   I could never feel comfortable calling it one. I'm sure there are
folks that consider my posts "frequently off-topic, occasionallly
inflammatory, and usually counter-productive".

   How many of us are confident that nobody ever perceives these faults
in us?

--
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf