Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:25:21 +0200

This is a personal draft written following some discussion
in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt

     Brian

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions
	Author(s)	: B. Carpenter
	Filename	: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt
	Pages		: 5
	Date		: 2006-8-9
	
    This document abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting
    Rights Action and restores the previous option of finite posting
    rights suspensions authorized by an Area Director.  It obsoletes RFC
    3683 and updates RFC 2418 and RFC 3934.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:30:15 -0700

I regard a 6-month ritual of:

1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages
2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension
3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as 
incomprehensible as before
4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month 
suspension
5) Suspending Jefsey for another 6 months
6) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the AD
7) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IESG
8) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IAB
9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to the 
ISOC BoD

as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful 
to the IETF.

draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment  has been approved for 2 months at 
this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people beyond 
November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a 
much better first step.

Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a raincoat next 
week. It's still raining.

                        Harald

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:22:53 +0200

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
> raincoat next week. It's still raining.

If the "umbrella" is Sam's experiment, and the "raincoat" 
Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw
away the former.  Are you talking about something else ?

Maybe the experiment should be added to its "informative
references".

Frank

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:26:28 +0200

Dear Harald,
its seems that you are rewriting History (past and future) in the 
same funny way as before (eg. your PR-action letter). BTW I am happy 
to learn I am only suspended for 6 months from the obsolete 
[email-masked]. One month to go then.

Look, you have used RFC 3683 to DoS me, prevent the use of the 
"en-eu" langtag, make the IESG violate the WG-LTRU workable consensus 
I wanted and obtained, and confuse many to enforce your vision of the 
IETF. This RFC 3935 of yours vision where leaders like you make 
decisions to "influence the way the people design, use, and manage 
the Internet".

This was a cute trick. Making the most important architectural issue 
addressed through a confuse ad-hominem. Protecting your lobby from 
having to answer any technical point. But I am afraid this mostly 
disserved your positions. This is not the place for me to dwell on 
it. But we all experience that it hurts the IETF's credibility in the 
linguistic and political areas. Is that what you want? I do not.

I only want:
- interoperability between your UNICODE system for the IANA and the 
rest of our world,
- independence for the IANA without having to look for your "somewhere else",
- and the IETF to differentiate the English Globalization and 
Multilingualisation architectural layers.
or the IAB to say they do not want it. To document the http://bcp47.org site.

If you want me to pursue on the way you impose me, I will. However, 
is it your best interest? I will most probably continue to win, while 
we should agree and work together. Your decision anyway.

jfc

At 15:30 10/08/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

>4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month suspension
>9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to 
>the ISOC BoD
>
>as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and 
>harmful to the IETF.
>
>draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment  has been approved for 2 months 
>at this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people 
>beyond November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella 
>would be a much better first step.
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:23:00 +0200

> away the former.  Are you talking about something else ?
3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages
Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat

Brian's draft = "throwing away".

Similes are hard....

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:58:11 -0400

>>>>> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes:

    Harald> I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from
    Harald> ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his
    Harald> unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until
    Harald> everyone's sure he's still as incomprehensible as before
    Harald> 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for
    Harald> another 6-month suspension 5) Suspending Jefsey for
    Harald> another 6 months 6) Dealing with his appeal of the
    Harald> suspension to the AD 7) Dealing with his appeal of the
    Harald> suspension to the IESG 8) Dealing with his appeal of the
    Harald> suspension to the IAB 9) Dealing with his appeal of the
    Harald> violation of his human rights to the ISOC BoD

    Harald> as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity,
    Harald> and harmful to the IETF.

I agree with you.  I don't see anyone advocating for this ritual or
any path that involves this ritual.  I don't understand who is
thinking this ritual is a good idea or is claiming this ritual is how
we will do things.

    Harald> draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment has been approved for
    Harald> 2 months at this point. While it disallows procedures that
    Harald> suspend people beyond November 2007, a procedure
    Harald> authorized under that umbrella would be a much better
    Harald> first step.

I expect to bring forward a procedure under this draft for the next
telechat.  The IESG would then of course announce the procedure and
have 14 days of feedback before it goes into effect.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:01:35 -0400

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> writes:

    Brian> This is a personal draft written following some discussion
    Brian> in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
    Brian> I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
    Brian> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt

I'm not sure much reconciliation is required.  I'd certainly prefer
non-normative reconciliation --saying something like "Non-working group lists are not currently covered by BCP; see this statement for the procedures at the time of approval at this draft," to normative reconciliation.

My preference stems from a desire to make as few changes as possible.
If the community wants to normatively define non-working-group lists
and can come to consensus on this, that would be fine too.

--Sam

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:01:35 -0700 (PDT)

> as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful

I agree 100%. I will also add that the statement "BCP 83 [RFC3683] has been
found troublesome and contentious in practice" is perhaps the silliest
justification for an action I've ever seen: Since these procedures are by
definition intended to deal with troublesome situations, it would be a quite a
feat if they were not themselves troublesome. And should the day ever arrive
when one of these actions isn't at least somewhat contentious, our ability to
meld quality standards in the crucible of vigorous debate will surely have been
lost.

> November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a

Agreed as well. I have no problem with modifying or even replacing
RFC 3683, but eliminating it is the wrong thing to do.

				Ned

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:30:35 +0200

> Brian's draft = "throwing away".

Oh, you prefer to keep 3683, instead of the status-quo antea
as specified in the draft.  In practice the difference would
be no mandatory "PR action last call" without 3683, anything
else (incl. appeals) as is, if I understood it correctly.

Frank

---

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:52:30 +0200

Frank,
I was the _only_ one who was NOT concerned by Brian's proposition. I 
did not intend to comment it, thinking it was a good way towards 
appeasement. However, I was everywhere in Harald's long ad-hominem 
(BTW mostly against the IETF appeal procedure). His point is against me.

There are two different issues:
- the IETF police which should be exercised by Sargents at Arms as 
everywhere, and a closed-door Honor Jury for ethical issues.
- the nature of the Internet architecture. Harald embodies a vision 
(RFC 3935) where he influences the way I should design, use, and 
manage the internet and he wants to impose on me through his control 
of the IANA registry. I disagree with that way.

Maintaining confusion helps no one.
jfc

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:50:40 +0200

> non-normative reconciliation --saying something like "Non-working group lists are not currently covered by BCP; see this statement for the procedures at the time of approval at this draft," to norm…

I agree with that - that was about all I had in mind.

> and can come to consensus on this, that would be fine too.

Quite so. I regrad that as in scope for the effort Jim Galvin kicked
off before Montreal.

    Brian

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:14:22 -0700

> thinking this ritual is a good idea or is claiming this ritual is how
Any procedure with a limited timeframe  for suspensions and an unlimited 
opportunity for using the appeals chain will have the side effect of 
requiring this ritual.

The 39xx suspension rule got WG chairs into exactly that spot (with a 
30-day cycle).

I'm not saying anyone desires it, I'm saying that we will get it unless 
we specifically make sure it's not possible to let ourselves be 
maneuvered into it.

> have 14 days of feedback before it goes into effect.
I'm looking forward to seeing it.

                           Harald