Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Addison Phillips
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:48 AM
> To: Mark Davis
> Cc: LTRU Working Group; Chris Newman
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Possible RFC 3683 PR-action
>
> +1
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
> > Very acceptable.
> >
> > (Myself, I tend to blacklist the person involved in my email client
> as
> > soon as identified -- but of course that still leaves random clutter
> in
> > the archives.)
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Randy Presuhn
> > <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com <mailto:randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>>
> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi -
> >
> >     As co-chair...
> >
> >     It is suspected that someone whose posting privileges to the
> >     ltru at ietf.org <mailto:ltru at ietf.org>
> >     mailing list were revoked pursuant to an RFC 3683 PR-action has
> been
> >     posting to the WG mailing list under one or more pseudonyms.
> While
> >     RFC 3683 recognizes the possibility of such misbehavior, it does
> not
> >     prescribe a means of determining when such a situation exists.
> As
> >     suggested by our area director, we propose the following metric:
> >
> >     1. All chairs and the responsible area director agree that the
> >     identified
> >     email address is the person subject to a PR action.
> >
> >     2. At least one independent participant of the list is informed
> that a
> >     suspected violation of a PR action is in progress without being
> >     informed of
> >     the suspect posting address or addresses.  That participant must
> >     independently identify the same posting address or addresses as
> the WG
> >     chairs & AD.
> >
> >     The list should be informed when the metric is applied.
> >
> >     Of course, this action would be subject to the usual appeal
> process.
> >
> >     We'd like to get a read on whether the working group feels this
> would be
> >     adequate.  I understand "independent participants" in our context
> as
> >     list
> >     subscribers (other than the chairs, ADs, and editors) who give
> some
> >     indication (such as recent postings) that would indicate that
> they are
> >     actually reading the list.  Martin and I think consulting three
> such
> >     participants should provide an adequate degree of confidence that
> the
> >     corrent address(es) have been identified, since that would mean
> that
> >     a total of six people have all come to the same conclusion about
> what
> >     postings were in question and who the poster might be.
> >
> >     Please respond to the ltru at ietf.org <mailto:ltru at ietf.org> list
> >     indicating whether you find
> >     this to be an acceptiable approach.
> >
> >     Randy
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG
>
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru