Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions' to ...

From: [email-masked] (Scott Bradner)
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:22:07 -0400 (EDT)

I agree with John K 

lets purge 2418, 3683 etc of any language that appears to limit 
enforcement options and work things out on a case by case basis

Scott

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:52:52 +0200

> enforcement options and work things out on a case by case basis

Just to be clear, the intention of sections 1 and 2 of
draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-03 is to remove the limitations
on 2418 inadvertently introduced by 3934.

That is quite separable logically from rescinding 3683;
hence the form of Sam's questions.

    Brian

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:19:32 -0400

For the record, I'm personally against rescinding 3683 at this time.
I will note that the one actually setting up the PR-ACTION was quite
disruptive (and I haven't been on the IESG so I haven't felt their
pain, I know), once the PR-ACTION *has* been set up, the amount of
effort to deal with someone who has been engaging in abusive posting
on the IETF list is requires less time than going through the process
of multiple suspensions, each of which has the pontential of
triggering a complaint to the IAB.  Is the tradeoff worth it?  Well,
with the knowledge that I am probably baised (and I am disclosing that
bias, as it's less work for *me* :-), I'd say yes.....

						- Ted

P.S.  Given the number of e-mails that I get from folks saying, "Why
haven't you taken action **sooner**?", hopefully people will realize
that the current IETF seargeant-at-arms have been very conscious about
wanting to err on the side of allowing more noise, rather than going
overboard with squelching dissent on the IETF list.  The reality,
though, is that most of the work is caused by a very small number of
individuals, so it may very well be worth the effort to go through the
pain of getting a 3683 PR-ACTION pased once, as opposed to amortizing
it over many mailing lists and multiple incidents.  But, that's just
my opinion.

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:19:32 -0400

- Ted