Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:43:22 +0200

> There's no reason everyone else should have to go
> install/fiddle mail filters just so you can continue
> to receive junk mail via a list where it doesn't belong.

That depends on how you define junk mail.  If everyone does not share the same
definition, there is a problem.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:21:59 -0400

> definition, there is a problem.

That is true, as far as it goes.  However, in the IETF world, we seem to have
reached much more than "rough consensus" on the definition.

Let me propose a radical solution:  The IESG should charter an IPv8 working
group, and *all* IPv8 related discussions should happen there.  They are to
report back to the main IETF list when they have 2 interoperable implementations.

Remember, Queen Isabella *knew* it was 18,000 miles to China if you went west,
because she knew the world was 25K miles around (not the 12K Columbus claimed).
She gambled 3 leaky ships and a bunch of ex-convicts.

Who knows? We might be as surprised as Queen Isabella was....
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:28:42 -0500

On 10/26/01 at 4:43 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>>There's no reason everyone else should have to go install/fiddle 
>>mail filters just so you can continue to receive junk mail via a 
>>list where it doesn't belong.
>
>That depends on how you define junk mail.  If everyone does not 
>share the same definition, there is a problem.

Anthony, you have consistently avoiding answering the one real issue: 
Jim was excluded, according to Harald, because his posts are 
off-topic for the discussions of this list. Many of his posts are 
about political topics which are out-of-scope of the charter of this 
mailing list (it is supposed to be about "engineering" or internal 
process issues of the IETF), and the rest of his posts are about a 
"technology" which the IETF has already come to a consensus that they 
have rejected. He has been reminded multiple times that his posts are 
out-of-scope for the list and yet he refuses to stop making those 
kinds of posts. (There are, of course, other lists for which his 
posts are perfectly reasonable. I would feel that the same thing 
should be done to a person who decided to constantly posting cake 
recipes to the IETF list and those posts caused the same kind of 
disruption that Jim's do.)

So, the question for you to answer is, "Are Jim's posts within the 
charter of the IETF general mailing list (even viewing them in the 
most favorable light)?"

If you can explain to all of us how his posts are reasonably within 
the scope of discussion here, you might get a great deal of support 
for reconsideration of his exclusion. However, currently consensus of 
this list seems to be that his posts are wildly off-topic (if not 
simply flame-bait) and are interfering with the work of this list. I 
think it is therefore incumbent upon you or others who want his 
privileges reinstated to explain why his postings are in any way 
within the scope of this mailing list.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 19:23:28 +0200

> So, the question for you to answer is, "Are Jim's
> posts within the charter of the IETF general mailing
> list (even viewing them in the most favorable light)?"

I don't know.  Do you have an algorithm that you can run against the text of his
messages to determine this objectively and unambiguously?

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:16:04 -0500

On 10/26/01 at 7:23 PM +0200, Anthony Atkielski wrote:

>I don't know.

An interesting response. A large number of us, using our best 
judgement, determined that they are not within the charter and 
therefore agree with his exclusion. One of the few people (yourself) 
who objects to his exclusion isn't sure whether they are within the 
charter. Seems to me that our consensus is that he is outside of the 
charter.

>Do you have an algorithm that you can run against the text of his 

Unfortunately (or fortunately), natural language is not likely the 
kind of stuff you can run through an algorithm for the meanings of 
its contents. Human analysis is required. Lots of people have 
presented their analysis of the situation. So again I ask: Do you 
think that his posts are reasonably within the scope and charter of 
this mailing list? If you're unwilling to explain why they are, I see 
no point in continuing to discuss this.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102