Re: The Sgt at Arms Please? RE: TLS-authz "experimental" standard

[Theodore Tso <tytso at MIT.EDU>]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:27:02AM -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The FSF copntinues to attempt to re-open this decision.
>  
> I don't see any infomation content to these posts, beyond the
> already known facts that 1) RMS has people read his Web site and 2)
> perpetrates a one-way form of communication - we have to listen to
> him but he has no intention of listening to us.
>  
> I suggest that we consider a mechanism for sending any message that
> is CC'd to campaigns at fsf.org straight to the bit bucket. The fact
> that it is multiple individuals responding to an obsolete campaign
> page rather than one noise maker does not make it any less
> disruptive.

Actually, to be fair, I don't think this can be laid at the feet of
the FSF.  Todd Glassey replied to a message approximately 3 months old
with some legal reasoning that at best seems highly contorted, and at
worst total nonsense.  (For example, requirements for a claim of
tortious interference of prospective economic advantage, or TIPA, are
quite specific, and almost certainly don't apply; people who are
interested are invited to google the term for themselves, and/or pay a
lawyer for a legal opinion).

Whether they are or are not, Todd's legal thoughts make sense,
*discussion* of these sorts of legal matters are outside the bounds of
the IETF.  Applying law to facts requires a law degree to in order to
give legal advice and form a formal legal opinion, and most of the
people on the IETF mailing list are not lawyers.

So while that message was not appropriate for the IETF list, it's not
fair to blame this on campaigns at fsf.org.

						- Ted

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