RE: [dean@av8.com: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

["Nick Staff" <nick.staff at comcast.net>]

Bert,

David asked the IESG to consider a PR-action ("posting rights" action)
against Dean.  Posting rights actions are governed by RFC 3683.

I agree that 3683 is used to apply drastic measures, but unfortunately those
are the measures the AD saw as appropriate for Dean's supposed infractions.
Even the RFC refers to applicable cases as "serious situations", but again
it was the AD who thought it fair to levy the harshest sentence at our
disposal against Dean.  It's judgment calls like that which make everything
circumspect to me.

nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen at lucent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:01 AM
> To: Steven M. Bellovin; dcrocker at bbiw.net
> Cc: nick.staff at comcast.net; 'IESG'; ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dean at av8.com: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list] 
> 
> Steve writes:
> 
> > Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion 
> of motions 
> > to block someone's posting rights.  It is, in so many 
> words, done by a 
> > Last Call.
> > 
> 
> Steve, I thought that RFC3683 is intended to apply "drastic measures"
> (see intro, page 4).
> RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures 
> if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2).
> 
> I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent 
> of an "IETF Last Call" everytime that a WG chair or AD finds 
> that an individual is disrupting normal WG process.
> 
> Bert
> 


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