Subject: Todd Glassey ban -- pretty please?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 20:34:00 +0300 (EEST)

While I've procmailed Mr Glassey's ramblings, something always spills 
over, and also detracts other IETF participants who then feed the 
troll, and discussion is disrupted.

I'd be more than happy to support a move to ban Mr Glassey. Is it time 
for a PR-action ?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:39:08 -0700

Thats how you deal with people you disagree with I that was a fascist model
of operations Pekka?

todd

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:38:03 -0400

>>>>> "Pekka" == Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> writes:

    Pekka> I'd be more than happy to support a move to ban Mr
    Pekka> Glassey. Is it time for a PR-action ?

I don't understand why RFC 3005 is insufficient.  

There may also be a need for action in the ipr working group, but I'm
sure the chairs are qualified to talk to their AD if they need help.

---

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 01:42:22 +0200

At 19:34 11/09/2006, Pekka Savola wrote:
>While I've procmailed Mr Glassey's ramblings, something always 
>spills over, and also detracts other IETF participants who then feed 
>the troll, and discussion is disrupted.
>I'd be more than happy to support a move to ban Mr Glassey. Is it 
>time for a PR-action ?

Dear Pekka,
Let consider your proposition.

1. RFC 3683 turns out being far more than a problem. It was not a 
priority of mine to reform the IETF, just to keep it credible and 
interoperated in the language area, so ethic was a side issue 
guaranteeing stability and preventing competition over influence. 
What my case shown is that trying to PR-acting someone motivated by 
an IETF reform, speaking good English, and with lawyer friends would 
create a controversy that would really harm the IETF. My interest in 
languages and Multilingual Internet is not a priority of most, while 
the general good of the IETF is a priority for all.

2. basically what I understand from the global thread, Todd seems 
concerned by what RFC 3774 names the "affinity group". I was 
confronted to it. So, I know the private support I was proposed (he 
will get still more). My strategy was weak to strong. I describe it 
in my IAB appeal. A too important/emotional support of my position 
would have confused the issues. So, it was my interest to cool the 
emotion. It would proably not what Todd would do, sue to the issue..

IMHO, fighting the messenger is not the proper solution to the 
problem. I frankly do not know what would be the good solution. 
However, what I observed (and what Harald said a few times in saying 
that the IETF was mostly a maintenance organisation) is that the 
IAB/IESG/IETF/IRTF system lacks two entities. One is an interface 
with the user's needs (I documented my proposition of an IGFTF, for 
that and ethic, but my priority is language system interoperability). 
The second one is an IDTF (Internet Development) aside of the IETF 
and the IRTF, permitting to differentiate the maintenance of the 
protocols and the practical development and experimentation of new concepts.

So, rather than PR-acting people because they contest the status-quos 
(technologies, doctrine, administration) I think more interesting to 
open new ways the users can benefit from.

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 17:55:14 -0700 (PDT)

> problem. 

The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying.  That is totally
inappropriate behavior.

Carl

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:43:13 +0200

I have indeed asked the sergeants-at-arms to consider this
under RFC 3005.

    Brian

---

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:02:02 +0200

>The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying.  That is totally 

I understand. But this is nothing compared with what I received to 
support me and I could have used. To trigger a PR-action is no good.

IMHO accusing Brian in the open is better than the mere existance of 
the thread which is actually based on worse, no one plainly telling 
but actually considering at least theoretically many things now or in 
the future. Creating doubt on the whole organisation.

What is necessary, now the doubt is here and Brian has good support, 
is to find a way out. As an external user interested in the impact of 
the IETF deliverables - as a technology maintenance center - I 
observe that most of the tensions are between most who want to 
protect existing recipes and build on top of what is deployed, and 
those who want the best solutions now, even in rebuilding from 
scratch what is wrong or outdated.

I think both attitudes necessary and only denotes the IETF maturity. 
So, a solution could be to give an efficient home to the second and 
growing part. Why would the IETF only maintain what is/was developped 
outside or before, and would not have an innovative development and 
testing branch? On the consolidation side rough consensus, affinity 
group, and Nomcom system seem to be accepted. On an Internet 
Development side may be more charismatic pushers, testing, and a 
welcome capacity for projects would be needed. This would call for an 
appropriate organisation to support them. With network architecture 
sourceforge testing? With updated documentation? With proposed proven 
source code? With user cooperation?

Time for investigating an IDTF? I do not know.
If some are interested to discuss it 
http://mail.idtf.org/mailman/listinfo/draft_idtf.org
jfc

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 04:24:34 -0400

> scratch what is wrong or outdated.

This may or may not be true, but it is completely irrelevant to the
matter at hand with respect to Mr. Glassey's behaviour.  To quote from
RFC-3005:

   In addition to the topics noted above, appropriate postings include:

    - Last Call discussions of proposed protocol actions
    - Discussion of technical issues that are candidates for IETF work,
      but do not yet have an appropriate e-mail venue
    - Discussion of IETF administrative policies
    - Questions and clarifications concerning IETF meetings
    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

   Inappropriate postings include:

    - Unsolicited bulk e-mail
    - Discussion of subjects unrelated to IETF policy, meetings,
      activities, or technical concerns
    - Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
    - Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not
      sponsored or endorsed by the Internet Society or IETF.

In the judgement of many, but most importantly including both
Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Glassey's has crossed the line in terms of
inappropriate mail postings in multiple messages, forming a pattern of
abuse.  To quote further from RFC-3005:

   The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
   appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
   or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate and represents a
   pattern of abuse.  They are encouraged to take into account the
   overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether
   particular postings are an aberration or typical.  Complaints
   regarding their decisions should be referred to the IAB.

Mr. Glassey has been warned twice now, and has rejected more gentle
messages intended to dissuade him from continueing his abusive
behavior.  If he persists, appropriate action will be taken to
restrict his posting rights per RFC-3005/BCP-45.

Regards,

						- Ted

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:08:57 -0400

Hoping against hope that this might be the last post in the thread, but one 
never knows...

I'm following up to Carl's note, but I'm speaking to the community.

> The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying.  That is totally

We are not very far away from the NomCom 2006-2007 call for nominations. 
That means a couple of things.

First, continued flaming away is wasted. Andrew and the NomCom will have 
more opportunity to influence things than any of the rest of us have BY 
POSTING TO THIS LIST. The entire community will have an opportunity to 
provide NomCom feedback on Brian, half of the IESG, half of the IAB, and one 
of the two IAOC members. That feedback will have far more impact on who 
serves, and does not serve, in IETF leadership than anything anyone posts to 
this mailing list.

Second, I agree with Carl that the level of reasoned discourse in these 
threads has achieved a totally inappropriate level. If you are hoping to 
replace some or all of the current leadership, it would be a lot easier to 
do this with a large and healthy pool of nominees who are willing to serve, 
and flaming away at a high rate on the current incumbents will likely shrink 
that candidate pool. Please don't do that.

If one or more members of the leadership needs to be replaced, and NomCom 
returns them because no one else was willing to sign up for the current 
level of attacks and abuse, we all lost.

If one or more members of the leadership needs to be returned, and they are 
replaced because they were unwilling to be called liars, we all lost.

If NomCom had the largest slate of qualified nominees who were willing to 
serve that we've ever had - both incumbents and new nominees - that would be 
a really good ending to this conversation. Could everyone focus their 
abundant energies in that direction?

Thanks,

Spencer, who is violating a commitment to myself that I would not post on 
process topics...

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:44:34 -0700

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 4:08 AM
Subject: Please make the madness stop (was: a whole bunch of flames)

> I'm following up to Carl's note, but I'm speaking to the community.

You mean to this Mailing List - and only this Mailing List - you are NOT
speaking to the IETF Community or to those who will be effected outside this
WG by these actions are you?

Why is that Spencer?

> > The messenger accused the IETF chair of lying.

No I DIDNT. I said we based on the process have no idea what to believe. If
you are saying "THAT BECAUSE SOMEONE IS THE IETF THAT THEY WOULDNT LIE IF IT
SUITED THEM" I would laugh and ask what you were high on.

> > That is totally

Fraudulently accusing someone of something to allow you to harass them is
inappropriate behavior.

> that candidate pool. Please don't do that.

You mean that you are against adding culpability to the processes of
selection and want them to remain essentially secret or hidden.

Why is that Spencer?

> level of attacks and abuse, we all lost.

No - actually what you are seeing are the flaws in the IETF's Management
Recruiting Processes. The facts that there are not three people waiting to
volunteer for each position is indicitive of issues with the IETF and its
value to the world.

> replaced because they were unwilling to be called liars, we all lost.

If the system is designed by this brilliant bunch of people such that it
matters whether someone in managment is telling the truth or not - then we
are lost. The point is that the IETF and its processes are supposed to be
above impropriety or the possibility of it and they are not.

> abundant energies in that direction?

No Spencer - I am more interested in focusing my energies in reforming the
IETF so that it really is what it claims today that it is. The problem
Spencer is that you and many others have put us in a position where we just
dont know who or what to believe and many of those individuals are involved
in the IETF and IPR WG's and they dont want outside criticism of their
actions therein.

Otherwise the Management of the IETF would be laughing and yelling back at
me "OK Glassey Bring it on..."

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:29:38 -0700

> WG by these actions are you?

First: this mailing list is not attached to a WG.  Spencer is speaking
to the IETF mailing list that is intended to reach the the broadest
possible audience and on which discussion is encouraged: [email-masked].
The closest real world analogy would be addressing the IETF plenary, but
the mailing list is intended to reach an even broader audience - you've
"met" Noel Chiappa on it who almost never attends an IETF.  This forum
is specifically created for the discussion of IETF-wide concerns.  It is
the highest-profile discussion list in the IETF.  It's easy to find,
free to join, and archived.  Anyone interested in the IETF workings
should be on it.  Of course someone can be overlooked, but the vast
majority of interested parties knows that this is the right list to
read.

When you indicate that you don't understand the forum you're addressing
([email-masked]), it creates the impression that you don't understand the
IETF very well.  That's the way I see it, YMMV.

More importantly, I think you should take a deep breath and look at how
worked up you're getting.  If your goal is a reasoned discussion and
reform of some policy wrong that you feel needs to be righted, your
presentation is significantly harming your ability to do so, IMHO.  I
also suspect that your health and happiness are suffering because of it.

A little advice: stop posting for a while, get a little distance from
the in-fighting, and get yourself back on kilter.  I think your
arguments and your health could both stand a little perspective.  That
may sound condescending, but the advice is well meant and freely given.
Take it or leave it, but I won't argue about it.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf