Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]

[Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com>]

> I regard a 6-month ritual of:

> 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages
> 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension
> 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as
> incomprehensible as before
> 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month
> suspension
> 5) Suspending Jefsey for another 6 months
> 6) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the AD
> 7) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IESG
> 8) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IAB
> 9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to the
> ISOC BoD

> as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful
> to the IETF.

I agree 100%. I will also add that the statement "BCP 83 [RFC3683] has been
found troublesome and contentious in practice" is perhaps the silliest
justification for an action I've ever seen: Since these procedures are by
definition intended to deal with troublesome situations, it would be a quite a
feat if they were not themselves troublesome. And should the day ever arrive
when one of these actions isn't at least somewhat contentious, our ability to
meld quality standards in the crucible of vigorous debate will surely have been
lost.

> draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment  has been approved for 2 months at
> this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people beyond
> November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a
> much better first step.

Agreed as well. I have no problem with modifying or even replacing
RFC 3683, but eliminating it is the wrong thing to do.

				Ned

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