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

[Kirsty P <[e-mail]>]

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