Re: [79attendees] Oops -- what were they _thinking_?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 23 November 2010 20:14 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 79attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 79attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7B0128C0DB for <79attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:14:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T51tE1OzvcHP for <79attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80533A6964 for <79attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:14:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so997541gwj.31 for <79attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:15:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GOVaLeStFvrTAPRN3/KXXjkApIEa5C1ASwgzBBz/RII=; b=iX/H83vAswes9BCj3lMc4tH85ln00qyUKFR1hT4t1bqmX5t18l2NeXaPExFejQmmYN wLgkYeiB1HUg9hHuFV6Dxh82HLOmUII3jVCf/6+y+iY43VWvtlQSun+ypMDpX3HKrOlT c7zx59fo+5onEd8/+BKQSYiRqhdCI0IGJxI84=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=kQ8hLE0Rq+qJAFhRRFAXK31jgcewEwGG9myl5YAkOY07a7cJnlnNEUagm+7bxFkOTS Xep8FCbDUATAckntHvm4iqfnqTFDofGH0Wkb+efo+ctzDZYbGU4vcprY/m17EMAxmjsY aB0nsMNUVSy6DSNEAWVtHOO5S7d1gMblcYjFU=
Received: by 10.151.43.1 with SMTP id v1mr5796855ybj.200.1290543347479; Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ppp-67-124-89-109.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.124.89.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm4254643yba.2.2010.11.23.12.15.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:15:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4CEC20EC.3020308@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:15:40 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: charliep@computer.org
References: <399924.41458.qm@web27903.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <4CE174EF.3050207@computer.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CE174EF.3050207@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: attendees <79attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [79attendees] Oops -- what were they _thinking_?
X-BeenThere: 79attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 79 attendees list <79attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/79attendees>, <mailto:79attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/79attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:79attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:79attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/79attendees>, <mailto:79attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:14:52 -0000

On 11/15/2010 9:59 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> According to my seatmate on my flight home, there
> were times when IESG or IAOC members would request
> that certain hallway discussions be terminated.


Charlie,

The presumption of your seatmate's comment is that there was an active effort to 
suppress free conversation.  Since you said "hallway", this was not about 
getting a meeting into order.  Other than volume control, it is difficult to 
imagine that this means anything other than an attempt to suppress political speech.

That is such a serious charge, it should be required to be much, much more specific.

The essential action that is called for, here, is to query your seatmate about 
specifics and report them back to this list.

Obviously the better action is for your seatmate to make a public, first-person 
report.  One could imagine that they might decline the request, for fear of 
retribution, but it would be irresponsible of them to make the basic claim to 
you and not provide enough detail to follow-up on it.

The fact that there have been no other reports of attempts at speech control 
makes this one report inherently suspect.  Absent more useful information, doing 
anything but ignoring the report would be irresponsible.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net