Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 07 January 2021 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85423A1400; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:31:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uG_wIdl2O7Ao; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x329.google.com (mail-ot1-x329.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::329]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FDF53A0EBC; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 16:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x329.google.com with SMTP id q25so4766030otn.10; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:30:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i+MdCkuudr6UsbEYLQN0YBDU8shaZb13n6w7ypRhkSk=; b=ZQ3Ly3ppKHMEXNuwAae6TpUHZFKdEzOPkuIv13Fna+Q+2y1AQUFDZIFVZLS3QxRyDG VGuDQ4p56JNojfGkPr1UWaBW5sgKhoTmzihTD2WXckhd9eqxkoHJuStGhLBLPEW/MGnP 90taofZVATAKbjLk7n3JYoxw4KAsRRHG3l0+OPFrUWftERhCC5Zcp3hZ5SGnJvsYeyuT NAJnKw/VlXb2JsEscueCwpvmNPE5GsWTku+++M5FhejeijWxzTVt3rsb8zrwsMByUicS pcaZpdzRBbJ1OrVJ+35kgCy53n+NMC1E7btUBFXlSBOcqge9N6gu2Wl8e1Z3kkLWsXUF TEZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i+MdCkuudr6UsbEYLQN0YBDU8shaZb13n6w7ypRhkSk=; b=ZT7q/mYZpo1dY0XP6V4jQNgu2flgUTXWK5ErTHcjdtYDeuv1db1ouEgNfFTOgKqTbY rZJB9QdQogjv1iDnjDxwZP4PhOLj45dmiSJwKaIUfrUaiXJLU4Vbe8l/A1aaOojdfZw/ zFvYf4PG6apiIXuB8zKsqhigWbAETLSNQjS7lY96TKDKJ3fDU5l/J27bje826tpNTj68 HcernS8Vj337GWYzr10fLaRH40Ic5eZLz9qCORQvdJBwM7JoBt4/0ysBJLrcwV7UUny7 QxupQ21/II9ovuf8krk7QKwHjtMxgXdUf/GKP5EOEhzk4x9Wdyl2RhQbeaTwYhTOrO5x KGPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318SmQD6MJUyHQLXSXkfZQ4YNpkoD1iYTnEIFiz1oZwdHoZnc6L z+LahhfLVpwkyrbUsJ4TqsNSDZL6FOx160kzYLQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyG25Re1AR85ZoXwQA/0FxetU46ctkneFT3Qxnn8Ne1W5h9/sMvhrfzXQL1g1NDjBnCfLyjnwg2goHf+S32hAw=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:104f:: with SMTP id b15mr5058802otp.155.1609979458352; Wed, 06 Jan 2021 16:30:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOZAAfPW6Oki-4Ebgk9yS1H-r19PBTqE8nDMTFjUKY38JKgrfQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOZAAfPW6Oki-4Ebgk9yS1H-r19PBTqE8nDMTFjUKY38JKgrfQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2021 19:30:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+E1pVLcciOm-aBGu4aqErASp-eOUmPKrZWHvz+sgmKgzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b5fa0205b8448dd7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_OIKqqZti810YJnJHgFumswQgB0>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Decorum on the DMARC WG list and BCP 94
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 00:31:01 -0000

All

If you feel a need to be heard, that is also what the chairs are here for.

thanks
tim


On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:21 PM Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> wrote:

> Working Group colleagues,
>
> Discussion on this list is increasingly out of scope and process,
> unproductive, and antagonistic. This behavior undermines the chartered work
> of this group and will not be tolerated. We expect and require more civil
> discourse from our participants, and remind everyone that disciplining
> others is the purview of the chairs.
>
> The current phase of work of our charter (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/) is to deliver a
> standards track DMARC document based upon operational feedback. We are not
> relitigating SPF, DKIM, DMARC, or ARC, adding new functionality, or
> rehashing other IETF documents or processes.
>
> When we kicked off DMARC bis, Alexey outlined a clear process:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/rBWzfzDa_tOhaVdxFzUBYVi46QI/
>
> Only tickets opened by the Chairs or a document editor to the list are in
> scope for working group discussion. Everything else should result in the
> creation of a ticket to be discussed later, or off-list discussion. The
> Chairs re-affirm that all tickets will be brought to the list.
>
> To be clear: Before you hit “send” on an email to this list, make sure it
> is on topic for an open ticket and is not likely to escalate tensions.
> Otherwise, delete the message or start a private conversation that is not
> on the list.
>
> From here on out, due to the counter-productive nature of current list
> discourse, off topic or antagonistic discussions will be given a single
> public warning, per BCP 94 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp94), which
> implies that further violations will result in a 30 day suspension for the
> participant. The ADs have been consulted, and everyone should consider
> themselves warned.
>
> Finally, several members of this working group seem to be very effective
> at antagonizing each other. If a thread is spiralling, and a BCP 94 warning
> is given and not heeded, all active participants in the thread after the
> warning has been issued will be suspended, even if it’s to tell others to
> respect the warning.
>
> Now, let’s get back to our chartered work at hand and open tickets.
>
> Seth, Tim, and Alexey, as Chairs
>
> --
>
> *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies
> *e:* seth@valimail.com
> *p:* 415.273.8818
>
>
> This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
> proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
> authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
> recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
> distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
> and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
> this email and then delete it from your system.
>