Re: [Gendispatch] Final public warning (Was: Messages from the gendispatch list for the week ending Sun Apr 11 06:00:06 2021)

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   Hi Kirsty,

   If you're going to threaten people (and saying my posting privileges 
can be
suspended is a threat-- communicated intent to inflict loss on another) then
the words you use to justify your actions are very important. Don't focus so
intently on the definitions, you say? I focus on them because you're using
them in a way that can adversely affect me. If you mean something else then
say something else. If that something else doesn't jive with the policy 
you're
trying to enforce then that should tell you something.

   If you want to tell someone that they should be more tactful and less
aggressive in email then that's a message that can be received and 
processed.
For instance, you could say, "You might've not meant to come across that way
but your response was curt and the implied tone could easily be 
misinterpreted."
Again, a message that can be received and processed that would result in 
what
you seem to want better than a threat that has trouble being justified.

   regards,

   Dan.

On 4/23/21 2:26 AM, Kirsty P wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> The previous warning was jointly written by Kirsty and Pete as 
> co-chairs, as is this email.
>
> What is most important here is that we're trying to maintain 
> productive, non-aggressive and on-topic discussion on the list and 
> however that is achieved, it works for us.
>
> For example, continuing a discussion about Kirsty's auto-appended 
> disclaimer (instead of dropping it) is continuing off-topic discussion 
> that isn't helpful to the list.
>
>
> So we'd encourage you not to focus intensely on the definitions of 
> words (by characteri[sz]ing, we mean"depicting (often in a negative 
> light)") but try to understand the bigger picture that is being 
> conveyed which is: we'd like to you participate, to discuss ideas and 
> messages, without attacking people - however, the way you sometimes 
> participate disengages others unfairly, so it needs to shift or we'll 
> inevitably have to postpone your privileges and we'll lose your 
> insights on the topic being discussed. Which is not a great outcome 
> for anyone.
>
>
> To be clear, you would need to commit another infraction before your 
> posting privileges would be suspended for 30 days, as detailed in 
> RFC3934 [1].
>
>
> However, like all other WG chair decisions, any suspension of posting 
> privileges is subject to appeal, as described in RFC 2026 [2]. You are 
> most welcome to invoke that procedure should you wish to, if we get to 
> that point (let's hope we don't).
>
>
> Kirsty and Pete
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Gendispatch <[e-mail]> on behalf of Dan 
> Harkins <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 22 April 2021 05:12
> *To:* [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Gendispatch] Final public warning (Was: Messages from 
> the gendispatch list for the week ending Sun Apr 11 06:00:06 2021)
>
>   Hi Bron,
>
> On 4/20/21 3:00 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> Damn it Dan, being a jerk doesn't help your cause any or make it 
>> easier to support any good points you make.
>>
>> This email was straight up jerk.
>
>   Yes, you're right. It was jerk. I can, and should, do better.
>
>> She works at an organisation which enforces such crap on all outbound 
>> email.  Boo hoo, sucks to be her - but that's what pays the bills and 
>> there are other things about working there which are less awful, I'm 
>> sure.
>
>   Well, there are plenty of free email accounts to use. No requirement
> to succumb to the whims of someone in legal.
>
>> You're pounding on the table.  Please desist for the sake of everyone 
>> else in this conversation.  It makes it look like the facts and the 
>> law aren't on your side.
>
>   Point very well taken. I do think facts are on my side and I do 
> think I have
> been obscuring that with my, as you put it, straight up jerk email.
>
>   Facts are:
>     - There was nothing in my email that "characterized another 
> participant
>        on the list". I did not make reference to anyone's distinctive 
> features
>        which is what "characterize" means. I said someone is probably 
> not the
>        right person to write a draft and Kirsty snipped the reasoning. 
> Yes, I
>        probably could've said that with more tact but snipping an email to
>        make it look worse in order to justify a public notice 
> is...well, not really
>        right.
>     - Kirsty makes it look like there were two issues in the past but 
> they're
>        both references to the same post of mine that resulted in an
>        admonishment by Pete and Francesca.
>     - And as I said to Pete and Francesca in a zoom call at the time, 
> I did
>        nothing wrong. They were criticizing me for doing things others did
>        that got no public notice. It was/is viewpoint discrimination 
> and that's
>        not right. Pete, at the time excused his viewpoint 
> discrimination because
>        he said I was trolling. His reasoning for that? I had to be, 
> because I was
>        being given a public notice, he just asserted it must be true 
> because it
>        justified his behavor. It was the most circular of reasoning.
>
> These are not legitimate reasons to remove my posting privileges.
>
>   Dan.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bron.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, at 06:17, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>
>>> You know what's inappropriate? Copyrighting your email with some
>>> vague legalesey footer.
>>>
>>>   You chastising my reference to the distinctive features of someone
>>> (what "characterizing" means) is not subject to a FOIA request! Is
>>> that a joke?
>>>
>>>   Dan.
>>>
>>> On 4/19/21 10:13 AM, Kirsty P wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 Apr 2021, at 18:27, Dan Harkins wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On 4/14/21 3:55 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> To me, it shows that the IETF list should not be given the deference
>>>> >> it is now (as suggested in other drafts).
>>>>
>>>> >   To me it shows that you're probably not the right person to write a
>>>> > draft to cancel the IETF list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan,
>>>>
>>>> That comment is inappropriate, characterizing another participant
>>>> on the list. You've been warned about this sort of message repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> While the chairs are under no obligation to give you a public warning
>>>> (RFC 3934 only says "the WG chair should send at least one public
>>>> warning on the WG mailing list"), given the events of last 
>>>> October[1][2], we
>>>> are inclined to give you this one final public warning: Such
>>>> characterizations or other disruptive behaviour on the list will not be
>>>> tolerated and your posting privileges will be suspended if it happens
>>>> again.
>>>>
>>>> Kirsty and Pete
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/fjyO2yW8ltVLD9jL2blUMGn94SQ 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fgendispatch%2FfjyO2yW8ltVLD9jL2blUMGn94SQ&data=04%7C01%7CKirsty.p%40ncsc.gov.uk%7C9757732bad3d4cf4761408d90545002e%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C637546616181120384%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=5Q1Xpi1xymPquw%2Feegc127R1ZWAfMh%2BCtVuZcBjk7l4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> [2] 
>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/CnaOc7y8s6L77z0h-b3DtE0gfOs 
>>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fgendispatch%2FCnaOc7y8s6L77z0h-b3DtE0gfOs&data=04%7C01%7CKirsty.p%40ncsc.gov.uk%7C9757732bad3d4cf4761408d90545002e%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C637546616181130341%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=z9y%2Bp0b9gBpQZ3G%2FMK4Dh7xcY3VGLQl7oud%2FJWksMU4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This information is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act 
>>>> 2000 (FOIA) and may be exempt under other UK information 
>>>> legislation. Refer any FOIA queries to [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>. All material is UK Crown Copyright ©
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
>>> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
>>> -- 
>>> Gendispatch mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:Gendispatch%40ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch 
>>> <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgendispatch&data=04%7C01%7CKirsty.p%40ncsc.gov.uk%7C9757732bad3d4cf4761408d90545002e%7C14aa5744ece1474ea2d734f46dda64a1%7C0%7C0%7C637546616181130341%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ahqsIT6jryDQtPCAg4h5G1b9yKoyLCOumIui46oNRls%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>   Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius
>

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius