Subject: Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:25:56 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>

    >> it is better that we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to
    >> the complainer(s).

    > As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past ... I think he's right
    > in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary action needs to
    > be *perceived* as fair. ... I think we do need to follow due process.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. My reasoning is that the decision of
whether or not to suspend should be based almost entirely on the target
person's posts, so the identity (and, indeed, the number) of people
complaining is basically irrelevant.

The whole concept of "facing your accuser" came about because the accusers
usually made factual claims ("I saw Joe steal Frank's car"). Traditionally,
people wanted to be able to weigh the truthfulness of such claims by
observing the person making the assertion, and observing their response to
questioning. In addition, the target might know of some grudge that led the
accuser to make a false accusation. In this case, however, there is
absolutely no probative value coming from knowing *who* complained.

To put it another way, I would hope if several people complained about some
reasonable post, the SaA(s) would independently review the post, and if they
thought it was reasonable, would take no action, the number or identity of
the complainers notwithstanding. The issue is not who complained - the issue
is the content of the posts - and that's all.

Indeed, any miniscule probative value in knowing who complained is entire
outweighed, IMO, by the possibility that making their identities public would
result in a campaign of harrassment against them.

And no, I was not one of the people who complained privately.

    > I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on their own volition,
    > but if they do they should say so

I have no probem with the SaA(s) disclosing whether or not they acted
entirely on their own bat, in response to complaints, or both. In addition, I
have no problem with them disclosing the number (if any) of complainters.

However, I strenuously oppose making the names public, because the potential
harm in that (possibility for harassment, and also the possibility that
less-forthcoming people will sit on their hands rather than complain, if
their names have to be made public) far outweighs any possible value in in
mking them public. Indeed, it turns out that most police departments actually
have anonymous tip lines, for precisely these reasons (and others).

If the community decides to do elsewise, I offer myself up as an anonymizing
agent for any complaints to the SaA(s); i.e. I will forward any complaints
sent to me, as if they were my own, after removing the identity of the
former. If I can recruit a few other people to do the same, that will suffice
to avoid any issue with one person not being able to complain more than once.

	Noel

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:55:12 +0200

> complaining is basically irrelevant.

I see no failure of due process in the Sergeants At Arms stating that
they have received a number of complaints about messages which were sent
to a couple of thousand people. It isn't as if the complainers were
making an attack on the sender of the messages; they were complaining
that the messages were disrupting normal discussion on the list. Such
complaints don't need to be public in order to be valid.

I don't want to substitute my judgement for that of the Sergeants;
but I think they have done the right thing.

     Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:35:46 -0700

Brian - what constitutes 'disrupting the normal conversation of the list' -
disagreeing with the management of the list?.

The issue isn't that I wasn't contributing - it was that the IPR and IP
teams and the IETF process teams WILL NOT LET ME PARTICIPATE because I bring
in non-engineering concerns with their IETF Operation's designs which makes
them look like what they are - engineers instead of what they should be
Operations Research or HR trained people so that they can look at human
dynamics better.

Your problem is that the LIST STRUCTURE of these entities DO NOT WANT ANYONE
ELSE IN THE IETF TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING... What do you think would
happen if a Broadcast Message was sent to the MEMBERSHIP of the IETF saying
that the IPR WG was changing the LEGAL CONSTRAINTS that controlled their
participation and that when it was done they would need to have their
Sponsor's attorney's look it over to make sure it was 'clean' and
appropopriate for them to continue participating under the new rules.

By the way - if this IETF was audited - every one of my complaints would
have been substantiated.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: Due process [Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment
(nea)]

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:35:46 -0700

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:55 AM
Subject: Due process [Re: [Nea] WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment
(nea)]