Re: [DNSOP] List conduct (was: Re: DNSSEC as a Best Current Practice)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 8:59 AM, Masataka Ohta <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Suzanne Woolf wrote:
>
> As some of you have noted, the thread under the subject "DNSSEC as a Best
> Current Practice" has included some inappropriate posts, not consistent
> with the IETF Code of Conduct or guidance on keeping the WG mailing list
> professional and productive. A DNSOP mailing list participant has been
> warned about their posts and asked to stop.
>
> As a person who have fought against SAAs in the main IETF mailing list
> about interpretations of "the IETF Code of Conduct" several times,
> sometimes followed by resignations of some SAAs, I feel I should give you
> chairs some advice on how to and how not to mention the code.
>
> As is documented in
>
> https://github.com/ietf/saa/blob/main/sop.md
>
> Level 0: Initial suggestion
> An SAA team member sends an off-list message to the individual on behalf
> of the SAA team. This message clearly identifies the concern, offers
> assistance with re-framing language, and identifies consequences for
> continued inappropriate postings.
>
> you should mention the code with "clearly identifies the concern" or you
> are against the due process. Maybe, you think the requirement is satisfied.
> But, see below.
>
> As a reminder to the list: people here can be vigorous and intense in
> their arguments and tone, but generally stay to the civil and constructive
> side, and the chairs don't like stepping into substantive technical
> discussions.
>
> That's simply wrong.
>
> As I, to confirm the freedom speech in IETF, explicitly confirmed
> destructive harsh criticisms are not "unprofessional" (w.r.t. the code) in
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lBs5-1u3asjocT56PoQEdnv1m2g/
>
> without resulting in SAAs' actions. There was no one who argued against me
> that the statement were "unprofessional". There was no one who argued
> against me that the statement were "inappropriate" nor "impolite", which
> means such destructive statements as
>
> IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid technical
> reasoning only to make network
> operations prohibitively painful is a garbage protocol.
>
> and
>
> LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best performed by DNS,
> in a lot less scalable way than DNS is a garbage protocol.
>
> is protected by "the freedom of speech" and is not "unprofessional" and is
> fully acceptable.
>
> So, your post utterly violate due process and should be revoked.
>
> Though you may disagree with the current interpretations on the code in
> IETF, you must obtain IETF consensus not here but, maybe, in the mail IETF
> list or you can't act based on your disagreement.
>
> In general, DNSOP has done pretty well at keeping things professional and
> productive. It's part of the chairs’ job to keep it that way.
>
> Recognizing unproductive protocols such as DNSSEC as unproductive
> protocols is, though may be to your surprise, productive.
>
> So, before mentioning the code, be aware of the relationship between "the
> freedom of speech" and the code.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>


I will point out that the DNSOP chairs are not SAA, and that this is not
the main list.

RFC 3934 says:
"As in face-to-face sessions, occasionally one or more individuals may
   engage in behavior on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the WG
   chair, is disruptive to the WG process.  Unless the disruptive
   behavior is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the WG
   chair should attempt to discourage the disruptive behavior by
   communicating directly with the offending individual.  If the
   behavior persists, the WG chair should send at least one public
   warning on the WG mailing list."

also, RFC2418 says:

"The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress
   through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the
   conduct of WG business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks
   are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.

   The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF.  The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in
   making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when
   circumstances warrant such an intervention."

The chairs were of the opinion that there was behavior disruptive to the WG
process (and, although it isn't important, I share this opinion). In their
view, this discussion was not helping to keep the WG mailing list
professional and productive (and, I also happen to agree with them on this).

Given the chairs’ responsibility, in my opinion, their “wide discretion in
the conduct of WG business” includes what they have done to keep the list
within the bounds of the WG charter and productive discussion. The chairs
have taken no other action, but if – in their judgment – the disruption
continues, as a last resort, they have the authority to suspend posting
rights for up to 30 days. (RFC 3934, Sec. 2).

As a reminder, any participant may appeal any decision regarding steps
taken within the standards process; the appeals process is documented in
RFC2026, Section 6.

Participants may also consult the Ombudsteam if they feel they have been
harassed, notice that someone else is being harassed, or have any other
concerns - more information is here:
https://www.ietf.org/contact/ombudsteam/

In any case, this particular discussion is not helping us make progress on
any of our work.

Thank you all,
W


> PS
>
> This message is sent after several days of "cooling off" period as a proof
> that I'm not responding in rage.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DNSOP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
>
>