[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: recourse if our rules are violated?
I think that depends. If the postings are disruptive because
they are, e.g., abusive of individuals and make wild claims that
are irrelevant to the IETF's technical work, then yes, there is
a difference and the issues are internal.
Who is to make that call?
However, if the
disruptive individual is pushing a technically-plausible
alternative view, even one that the IETF has rejected, in a
too-aggressive way that becomes disruptive, then the IETF is
making a decision about the appropriateness of a technology (or
of further discussion of a technology) based on behavior of
individuals who we do not believe are following the rules.
The problem is John that the IETF's operations are 'decided' by a very small
group of people who really dont seem to want outside voices involved. This
isnt abuse its a conspiracy to 'tortuously interfere' with another's
ininitiave and the IETF and in particular those managers within the IETF
need to be held accountable for that.
In my case for instance I am still debating as to whether to sue the IETF
for eliminating my voice from the IETF mailing list since it prevents me
from any new efforts within the IETF. So far I am too busy with the new time
services company to spend the time, but that could change... My point is
that any and all suspensions must be reviewable as temporary IMHO.
Todd Glassey
I'm not sure what that leads to in terms of IETF procedures.
We're still left with two choices: ignore the IPR claim or
ignore the technology.
I would have chosen a different verb than "ignore", but, yes,
that is the problem and, at least, the reason we need to make
careful case-by-case decisions.
john
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg