Subject: I'm not going to listen to this any more.

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 21:02:19 +0200

Since I'm no longer responsible for anything that Dean Anderson has a 
legitimate role in, and Dean Anderson has proved that he irritates me, I 
can stop listening to Dean Anderson.

Goodbye, mr. Anderson.

--On 25. juni 2005 20:21 -0400 Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> The IETF cannot accept the statements of known, court-proven liars, nor
> can it suppress this fact in its deliberations.  If the IETF accepts
> court-proven and documented liars as reliable sources of fact, then it
> will have no more credibility in its statements, as they will be based on
> lies, not on truth.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:25:30 -0400 (EDT)

This would be a personal attack, I think.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:05:36 -0400 (EDT)

Mr. Alvestrand's comments certainly demonstrates the animousity of the
former chair and they demonstrate his motive for not enforcing the IETF
and ISOC Code of Conduct against those making personal attacks against
Dean Anderson, Av8 Internet, and perhaps others, such as Dan Bernstein,
who were abused but the abuse was never properly redressed, nor were the
abusers chastisted or punished in any way.  Abuse of Mr. Bernstein by
Randy Bush was on the Namedroppers (DNSEXT) list, and included publishing
his subscription address enabling forged unsubscriptions, and altering or
delaying his messages and other inappropriate "special treatment" for
which Mr. Bush was never chastised or punished, nor made to apologize.  

Mr. Alvestrands recent comments shows again the substance to this
complaint:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg30614.html

Therefore, I would like to renew the earlier Code of Conduct complaints
made against Mr. Vixie and others, with the additional provision noting
the personal hostility of the former chair, Mr. Alvestrand, and his
failure to act appropriately regardless of his personal hostility.

I believe the IETF owes an apology to Dan Bernstein, Dean Anderson, Av8
Internet, and possibly others.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:56:08 +0200

I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably
rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:59:45 +0200

I have the good fortune to not be subscribed to the
namedroppers list, so I have no familiarity with past
traffic on that list. I think it behooves us all to let
bygones be bygones - I don't see much point in debating
alleged misdeeds of former ADs.

     Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:08:44 -0700

> rule it irrelevant and ask Harald not to repeat it.

I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who 
violate list policy egregiously.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 10:02:24 -0700

Brian,

> alleged misdeeds of former ADs.

ADs in their deeds, or misdeeds represent not just themselves, but
IESG as a whole. As such, deeds/misdeeds of ADs should be viewed
as deeds/misdeeds of IESG, and not just of individual ADs. Therefore,
I think it behooves IESG to resolve *in a public forum* complains
about alleged misdeeds by ADs, irrespective of whether these ADs
are former or not.

Yakov.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:12:20 -0600

If so, please make a separate mailing list.

-- 

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:11:24 -0400

> violate list policy egregiously.

As one of the IETF list's "sargent at arms", I certainly don't see
Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.

						- Ted

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:30:26 -0700

>  or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.

i screwed up.  i was trying to invoke procedure, not claim it should be applied 
to harald.  in fact i want it applied to dean.

sorry.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 11:32:15 -0700

> or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.

sorry for the badly written note.  i was trying to focus on getting the 
procedure used, not specify who it should be used against.

harald's posting was not what i considered to be egregious.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:57:45 -0400

> procedure used, not specify who it should be used against.

The criteria of what is and isn't acceptable can be found in RFC 3005.
As far as the actual procedure, it's fairly informal.  The sargeants
at arms (currently Jordi Martinez and myself) are appointed by the
IETF chair and serve at his pleasure.  In the case of a problem, they
will confer with each other and the IETF chair (unless there is a
conflict of interest caused by the, ah, heated discussion involving
the IETF chair) and send a private warning to those who are violating
the mailing list charter as specified in RFC 3005.  If the behavior
does not stop, this will be followed up with a public warning, and if
that doesn't work, suspension of posting privileges, presumably with
an exponentially increasing time period for repeated infractions.
Fortunately, after this system was introduced we haven't had a need to
invoke the procedures, so some of the details haven't been ironed out.
The general principle, though, is that the mailing list moderation
should be done with as light of a touch as possible.

						- Ted

---

From: "Nicholas Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:50:30 -0700

You could also reasonably rule it obnoxious, childish, and pubescent.
Moreover since according to your earlier post you don't think fact is an
acceptable defense of a personal attack your response is at best a curious
double standard.  Unless of course your comment about it being fact was just
some snyde payback from an earlier discussion.

Clearly Harald included himself in the conversation for the sole purpose of
being a jerk and his success in that area was disruptive and deconstructive
at least for me.

Best regards,

Nick Staff

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:56 AM
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.

I read it as a statment of fact. I could reasonably rule it irrelevant and
ask Harald not to repeat it.

     Brian

Dean Anderson wrote:
>>legitimate role in, and Dean Anderson has proved that he irritates me, 
>>I can stop listening to Dean Anderson.
>>
>>Goodbye, mr. Anderson.
>>
>>>The IETF cannot accept the statements of known, court-proven liars, 
>>>nor can it suppress this fact in its deliberations.  If the IETF 
>>>accepts court-proven and documented liars as reliable sources of 
>>>fact, then it will have no more credibility in its statements, as 
>>>they will be based on lies, not on truth.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:42:06 +0100

> violate list policy egregiously.

Well, we should have.

I think Harald has been an excellent chair, at least from my view in the
cheap seats.  To suggest otherwise I feel is highly unfair.

I find author-based kill files work well, but sadly one still sees snippits 
of the thread when others follow up to the same thread.   

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 01:48:03 -0400 (EDT)

> harald's posting was not what i considered to be egregious.

Since when are _true_ facts about liars on a subject (open relays)  
discussed in an IETF RFC, egregious?  Is it against list policy to assert
that the IETF should be honest, and not associate with liars?  I missed
that part. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out?

Your beef is with reality.  I didn't create the facts, I'm just the
messenger. The people who created the facts of their lies (by lying)
thought, like some others, that lies will never return to haunt them.  Of
course, that's what reputation is about: the return of past misdeeds.  
Associate with liars, and people will say you associate with liars. 
Reasonable, civil, rational people won't trust liars nor their associates.
Accountability is harsh.

I wrote this for another purpose, but its appropriate here:

Defamation sometimes results in a short term gain for the defamer, and a
short term loss for the defamed.  But, given time, it always results in a
long term loss for the defamer and a long term gain for the defamed.  Be
patient, but don't forget.

Before 1720, British defamation law didn't permit truth as a defense
against defamation. In fact, if the defamatory claims were true, common
law made the penalty worse because, as the courts reasoned before the 18th
century, truth was far more damaging than lies.  But around 1720, 2 people
writing under the pseudonym Cato argued that truth should be an defense
against defamation. They were subsequently sued for defamation for
revealing disparaging true facts. They won. Since then, truth has been an
absolute defense against defamation.  

It is remarkable that truth is more damaging than lies.

		--Dean

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:31:38 -0400

> that part. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out?

Dean, 

	I would suggest to you that calling someone a "liar" could be
considered by some a personal attack.  More importantly, though, it
generally causes people to simply ignore you as a rabble-rousing
troll, and to ignore everything else that you write.  If it were not
for my responsibility as a "sargeat-at-arms", I would have added you
to my kill file long ago, not because you get me angry, but because
most of what you write is simply not worth my time to read.

	Calling someone a "lair" is making a claim that they are
knowingly stating a falsehood.  However, making assumptions about
another person's motivations is never a good thing to do if you are
trying to promote conversation.

	They may have observed a different set of facts in their
geography or in the circles they frequent; they may see a few cases
which you consider to be highly important which they classify as
unimportant exceptions; they may simply be mistaken.

	Instead of writing a treatise about lairs and defamtion law,
it would have helped moved the debate forward if you had written what
you have observed, why you think it is an important indicator, and
what you think people should consider, in a calm, reasonable tone of
voice, without questioning other people's motivations, ethics, or
morals.  But if you don't care about helping out the IETF, please
consider doing it because it will make it more likely that people will
chose to read what you write, instead of simply deleting or
autodeleting all e-mail messages from you.  It is in _your_ interest
to post in a more reasonable, more moderate fashion.

	Regards,

						- Ted

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:00:32 +0200

Dean,

Please stop repeating assertions about alleged liars.

Sergeants-at-arms, please pay attention since I believe that we
may need to consider action if this continues.

    Brian