Re: Ah, I see the cause of the situation now... (tls-authz situation)

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>]

On Feb 10, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Alex Loret de Mola wrote:

> Dear Melinda (as well as Ole and Noel, who updated with posts while I
> was writing this =) ):
>
> I understand your concern, and it concerns me as well.  I'm in a bit
> of a delicate situation, attempting to play the role of liason between
> us and the FSF (ever since I volunteered for such a duty yesterday),
> and since yesterday's events I've been attempting to reconcile what is
> reconcilable (if anything is) and send better methods that the FSF can
> use to voice its concerns in the future over to them.

FWIW my opinion on this is that

- respect and politness count for a lot (at least for me), and the FSF  
mail bomb was fairly
polite. I would certainly not say that they should be banned (although  
I would suggest that people should be required to join the mailing  
list to post).

- These matters depend on the details a lot. Suppose that a major  
religious figure or a major
movie star encouraged their supporters to email the IETF list. That  
would be a true DOS attack, as it easily might
engender hundreds of thousands of emails. There would be no choice but  
to squelch it. I don't regard the
actual FSF mailing as being in that category. So, I think it has to be  
tolerated, but not encouraged, and gentle suggestions for improvement  
might be useful.

- All of this is orthogonal to the consensus call itself, which as far  
as I can tell has yet to be done in this case. Whoever is making the  
consensus call in this issue will have to, as always, use their  
judgement, and that will include the FSF-generated emails.

Regards
Marshall

> Examples like "Reject TLS!" are definitely good examples of ignorant
> comments in here, and I'm not attempting to defend that.  But there
> were intelligent arguments made as well, and those shouldn't be
> ignored just because they originated amidst posts that were less
> educated.
>
> The FSF, like I said, seemed to appreciate the gesture we sent to them
> when I bundled the alternative recommendations that people sent my
> way.  Maybe it will lead to a more productive and less frustrating
> approach on their part in the future.
>
> What I don't want to see, however, is intelligent and reasonable
> people turned away by the abruptness of the backlash here.  I can
> understand the reasons for that abruptness, but intelligent interested
> parties and people with a passing (or less) interest are both going to
> feel rebuffed and unwelcome if our response is rude.
>
> I've been trying to help this situation, for example, and I've
> received a handful of rude comments and dismissals thrown my way just
> in doing that.  I don't think anyone deliberately intended to be rude
> - they were understandably upset with the situation.  What I'm saying
> is that the FSF should consider the alternative methods of bringing up
> their concerns that we sent to them, and we should consider a larger
> measure of patience and tolerance when these things happen.
>
> And indeed, as Noel said, the idea of adding a link expounding a bit
> further about the scope and intent of last call could be one of many
> solutions.  The FSF using one of the other, more productive channels
> (such as the ones I mentioned in that E-Mail) is another one.
>
> Judging by the FSF's response, it is my hope that they're giving
> serious consideration to the alternatives I sent them.  They seemed
> appreciative of the information.  Theoretically they could've been
> merely patronizing me... but I prefer not to accuse someone of
> patronization unless it becomes clear that such is the case.  In that
> light, I propose that we give them the benefit of the doubt and see if
> they take those more productive routes the next time around.
> Certainly it would be in their own best interest as much as it would
> be in ours.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alex Loret de Mola
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf