Subject: Appeal of AD Decision to uphold Atompub ban

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:20:15 -0500

Dear IESG,

I'm writing to appeal an AD decision to ban me from posting to the
Atompub mailing lists. The text of the original appeal is included
below.

Please keep in mind that this message comes from someone who has put a
lot of effort into the WG activities, edited the only successful
product of the WG (RFC4287), and written the I-D that makes up a large
part of the current WG protocol draft. I am not a disruptive loony.

I'm told these two messages are the problem:

> http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04700.html
> http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04709.html

The behavior I describe in those messages has gotten the better of me
in the past, and I've lost my temper on-list. I agree that can't be
permitted, but that is not what happened in this case. What I did was
describe the actions of WG members, and the way in which they are
gaming the IETF process. The chair then (publicly) suspended my
posting privileges.

In the conversations since, I observe that no one has questioned the
accuracy of my remarks, and since the remarks are accurate, there is
no WG process to disrupt--it has already failed. Publicly muzzling me
won't change that, and is certainly inappropriate.

Please don't file a PR Action on me for telling the truth =),

Robert Sayre

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar 15, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Rob Sayre banned from posting to the lists for 30 days
To: Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>, Ted Hardie
<[email-masked]>
Cc: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>

Dear Scott and Ted,

Paul Hoffman has banned me from both Atom lists for "ad hominem
attacks", and I am writing to appeal his decision. Paul has banned me
once before, a decision I did not appeal (I was unacceptably rude, but
not without provocation). During the 30 days I was banned, the WG
achieved did pretty much nothing.  I only mention this because I
believe it demonstrates that my presence is not the reason for a lack
of WG progress. I posted a bit on one issue about two weeks ago, then
some messages in the last few days.

I believe the two messages he is referring to are included below.
Those messages were brought about by the secretary and the editor of
the draft announcing a conformance test suite that consisted almost
entirely of tests that were not mentioned in the WG draft, insisting
that test failures constituted interop failures, citing the old
"running code" saying, and then had their co-workers respond
enthusiastically to the tests. My feeling is that this action results
in one implementation defining interop, and is an egregious abuse of
their WG positions. Note that said implementation is not for
end-users, but is supposed to embody the specification itself.

I am not sure how I could object to those actions without implicating
individuals in some way, so in that sense, Paul's "ad hominem" remarks
are accurate. In addition, I brought up the fact that I believe this
just the latest episode in a series of WG manipulation on the part of
one or two implementers. Paul, would you like to dispute the fact that
certain WG members were permitted and encouraged to club well-written
and technically-sound proposals for months on end?

I am sure Paul got a lot of off-list heat for the remarks included
below, but there is nothing particularly improper about them. I named
one company by name, and Paul warned me off-list not to raise it
again. In my second message, I did not, but I did identify the exact
behavior that bothered me. I questioned the legitimacy and openness of
the WG. I do not think that constitutes an ad hominem attack. Lastly,
I asserted that the WG had achieved consensus-by-exhaustion. It's easy
to verify this claim by examining the participants that currently
populate the list, and comparing them with the folks that were around
when the atom-protocol list was started, and then comparing those
people with the folks that were around when the atom-syntax list was
started.

It is my opinion that the accuracy of these remarks is the problem,
not the remarks themselves. I believe that publicly banning me from
the list was completely inappropriate.

thanks,

Robert Sayre

On 3/15/06, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Because of his recent ad hominem attacks on WG members, I have
> temporarily suspended Rob Sayre's posting privileges for the two
> Atompub WG mailing list for 30 days, as specified in RFC 3934. If you
> have questions or comments about this action, please first take them
> to Tim and me offline.
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mar 15, 2006 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: This is not the feed validator discussion list
To: James Snell <[email-masked]>
Cc: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>, Henry Story
<[email-masked]>, atom-protocol <[email-masked]>

On 3/15/06, James Snell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> On 3/15/06, Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Maybe we should we call it the IBM Publishing Protocol.
>
> Rudeness objection.  Please refrain from making any further derogatory
> remarks about any specific organization that may or may not be implementing
> the atom specs.

Are you seriously denying that people didn't sit here and club things
for months waiting for something they could have more control over?
That makes the IETF look pretty bad, and it makes the output of this
WG the product of consensus by exhaustion.

I find that sort of behavior rude and derogatory, and this latest
demonstration of severe insecurity over an easily revertible
expression of opinion is unsurprising in the context of a group with
no claim to legitimacy or openness.

--
Robert Sayre

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

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:31:22 -0500

Since this has been a touchy process subject lately, I must correct an error
in the appeal: the AD (me) did not decide to ban anyone.  I decided to
uphold a decision made by one of the atompub working group chairs.  Since my
decision is being appealed, and it was not included in the appeal to the
IESG, I have copied it here for completeness.

-Scott-
----------
From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:16 AM
To: 'Robert Sayre'; Ted Hardie
Cc: Tim Bray; Paul Hoffman; 'Lisa Dusseault'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Rob Sayre banned from posting to the lists for 30 days

Robert,

I just reviewed the recent list messages, Paul's note announcing the
suspension, and the text of your appeal.  These two messages caught my eye:

I must also note that you said that "Paul's "ad hominem" remarks are
accurate" in your appeal.  While I can understand your frustration I have to
agree that both messages above are essentially attacks on the motives other
working group members.  In isolation I believe they would be worthy of a
warning, but given that warnings and suspensions have already happened I
must concur with Paul that a suspension of posting privileges is
appropriate.  The appeal is denied.

-Scott-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]; IETF discussion list
> Subject: Appeal of AD Decision to uphold Atompub ban
> 
> Dear IESG,
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:40:15 -0800

Folks,

>     What I did was
> accuracy of my remarks, 

The purpose of this note is to ask a question that I believe the above text
suggests.

However this note offers no comment on the current appeal that is discussed in 
the note containing the above text.  In fact, the note has nothing at all to do 
with that appeal. It relates to that process only by way of triggering a 
separate question.

So...

A working group is a group process, which means that it is human, which means
that it is certain to (sometimes) have qualities of politics, gaming, and other
nuances of technique that are intended to win debates, based on 
specially-formulated group leverage rather than purely on abstract, technical 
excellence  and fully open rough consensus.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that these techniques could go too far,
sometimes. That is, that the special methods of pressing for a particular 
outcome could be through subtle or hidden processes that essentially violate the 
requirement for rough consensus.

Were the violation sufficiently blatant, then a normal IETF appeals process 
would suffice.  What I think is at issue, here, are coercive forces that are 
less easily pursued.

So here is my question:

      What is an acceptable way to raise a concern that this sort of problem is 
present?

When someone thinks that there is an elephant in the room, we need to let them 
at least raise their concern.  In this case, the nature of the purported 
elephant is highly inflammatory, so we need to know how to raise the concern in 
a fashion that is considered within the bounds of reasonable working group 
contributions.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:41:09 +0100

At 19:40 16/03/2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
>What is an acceptable way to raise a concern that this sort of 
>problem is present?
>When someone thinks that there is an elephant in the room, we need 
>to let them at least raise their concern.  In this case, the nature 
>of the purported elephant is highly inflammatory, so we need to know 
>how to raise the concern in a fashion that is considered within the 
>bounds of reasonable working group contributions.

+1

I will add to the question, also:

- when a BCP is involved and an appeal will not prevent it from being enforced
- when a IANA registry is concerned and nothing will prevent it from 
being created and the elephant to crash the world.

Thank you.
jfc

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:45:19 -0500

Robert, Scott and Paul, is there any chance you could sit down and try to work this out?

I read Robert's two messages to the working group list and I do find
them fairly hard to follow.  They don't explain why he's angry at a
specific organization or what the supposed process failure is.

If he had explicitly explained that there were conformance tests that
were not motivated by the document in his messages, they would have
been more useful.  If he had given examples of specific tests that
were incorrect, it would have been even more useful.

It seems that in this instance, a specific discussion of where the
line is drawn would be more useful than being so formal about this.

If Paul and Robert can agree on a line and Paul believes that Robert
will be able to follow that line, then perhaps the suspension could be
lifted.  Remember suspensions are a tool to improve efficiency of
orking groups, not punishments to punish people for bad behavior.

Even if Paul is not comfortable enough to lift the suspension, I bet
all parties involved would be in a better position if both Paul and
Robert had explicit understanding of what was acceptable and what is
not.

--Sam

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:25:28 -0500

On 3/19/06, Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> is there any chance you could sit down and try to work this out?

No, the WG is out of control. That's easy to observe, no matter where
one places the blame.

> were incorrect, it would have been even more useful.

There were 10 or 20 tests in the suite, and I didn't bother to go
through each of them and explain. However, I did show that the
possible errors in the test suite were mostly bogus.

http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04682.html

I was then told that there would have to be a "discussion", and that
the test suite consituted an implementation that showed evidence of
interop problem. I've always thought that WG discussions should take
the form "My application has problem X, and I want to to fix it with
solution Y." In fact, atompub has a rather formal process in place
that requires WG members do exactly that.

>
> Remember suspensions are a tool to improve efficiency of
> working groups, not punishments to punish people for bad behavior.

If efficiency is the concern, I'm not the person to ban. The WG has
steamrolled my objections twice, only to adopt my individual draft a
few months later (though they don't admit that). It looks like they're
headed for a third time. That should only take three or four months,
maybe five or six, if it's decided that another individual is
threatening in some way.

--

Robert Sayre

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:34:02 -0500

On 3/19/06, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> There is a long-standing effort outside the WG that includes
> conformance tests. Their first inclusion of conformance tests for the
> current draft had many errors, as Rob pointed out.

The errors were extensive to indicate that either the editor of the
draft hasn't read the draft, or the tests were put there
intentionally. I'm not sure which is worse.

>  He has not tried to change the
> document based on his bogus tests, and would certainly be shot down
> (without Rob's vitrol) if he did.

Actually, in the past, the editors have included several normative
requirements with consulting the WG, and then insisted they were
grounds for "discussion". See a pattern here?

> The line is drawn when the attacks become personal.
...
> imputing absurd motives on them...

"Wouldn't it be easier if we started with some set of requirements/use
cases instead of inventing them on-the-fly to club alternative
proposals?"
<http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg03355.html>

There's your problem, and there's proof that I'm not the only one that
feels this way.

--

Robert Sayre

---

From: "Robert Sayre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:03:12 -0500

> working groups, not punishments to punish people for bad behavior.

Sam, thank you for your calm remarks. After spending a week thinking
about this suspension, I have decided to withdraw my appeal, even
though I still believe it was an unjust decision. The appeal is too
distracting for the Atompub WG, who are supposed to be getting work
done right now. I am skeptical that Atompub will get any work done,
since I believe they have inaccurately identified the cause of their
problems, but I wish them luck with the text I wrote for them.

IESG members, please consider the appeal withdrawn.

Thank you, and I apologize for the waste of time.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 03:06:53 +0100

Robert,

> IESG members, please consider the appeal withdrawn.

Noted, and thank you.
> Thank you, and I apologize for the waste of time.

We have an appeals process for good reasons, and you should
certainly not apologize for starting to use it.

     Brian