Subject: Re: trying to sweep namedroppers mismanagement under the rug

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:09:17 -0600

Thus spake "Dean Anderson" <[email-masked]>
> I would agree the problem is solved if Bush adds the proper addresses to
> the approved subscribers list, as publicly requested.
>
> But since it has taken so much discussion to arrive at that solution (and
> I'm not sure we have yet), list management is clearly a problem, and has
> been a chronic problem.

List management is not a problem; there is a policy statement and it is
followed.  If individuals refuse to follow the documented process because
they wish to be a martyr, that is not the IETF's or IESG's problem.

If someone has a problem with the process, that needs to be directed at the
IESG in a general form, not as a personal attack against a list maintainer
as long as said maintainer is following the IESG's policy.

S

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:27:14 -0500 (EST)

If list management weren't a problem, and the policy were being followed,
we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I have been engaged with some people in private discussion that has
illuminated some fallacies. Apparently, some people think that somehow DJB
just hasn't followed instructions. And that Bush has somehow
"simply misunderstood".  Neither of these are the case.

>From a private message:
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2002/msg02010.html
>
>       [ In this one, Bernstein states: 'As for my own sender address
>         [email-masked], Bush has already taken manual action---but what he
>         did was _not_ adding the address to a list of known addresses.'
>         Bernstein fails to mention whether he explicitly asked Bush to
>         do this action.  Bernstein also fails to acknowledge that his
>         posts have been clearly marked as being from a non-subscribed
>         address for some time. ]

This seems pretty self explanatory, and supports my point. But you left
off a critical piece:

"---shortly after I had informed him that I
kept _that_ address private to limit the number of people who can forge
unsubscription requests."

Note the 'after I informed him'.  Obviously, Bush and Bernstein have had
private conversations on this topic, and Bernstein has asked Bush to put
[email-masked] on the post list.

Very clearly, IESG policy is not being followed by the list maintainer.

>From a private message:
> Dean Anderson writes:
> > The history of Bush mis-using his administrative tools to gratify his
> > animosity towards certain people is well established, and is not
> > irrelevant to the present situation.  Bush will continue to abuse his
> > priveleges, and its my opinion he should therefore be removed as
> > namedroppers adminstrator.
>
> As I've said, I am not expressing an opinion on Bush's past behaviour,
> and thus feel it is irrelevant to the current topic.

How can it be irrelevant?  If someone has a past history of abuse of a
particular person, they can't be judged as though they have never met and
have no reason to be malicious.  Bush's "misunderstanding" is not
accidental, but a pattern of willful harrassment.  This is not a "personal
attack" on Bush. I'm just stating the facts. The facts reflect badly on
Bush, but that is through his own doing, or not doing.

		--Dean

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:13:56 +0100

> we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You are right! Escalating flame-wars on the IETF-list never happen
unless there is a real honest-to-god technical dispute and Elvis is
alive and well on Mars ;-)

	Cheerio Leif