Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with [censored]

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi,
At 15:01 22-10-2013, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>I may have worded out too quickly my email, and actually looks like it was
>more important for my decision the anonymity issue vs the off-top
>question, but is still my opinion that this address must be banned.
>
>We could take a decision on future anonymous postings, if required, I'm
>always pro-privacy, but I don't think this is applicable in IETF works,
>and this include exploders. Again this is my personal point of view.

There was a decision to ban (see above) an email address because of 
two messages sent to the mailing list.  I read the mailing list 
archive and did not find any warning.  The advice given was:

   "If you decide to identify yourself, as the rest of the posters, and be
    on-topic, you will be allowed to post again."

I read the quoted text (see above).  I cannot tell which part of it 
is a personal opinion and which part is the opinion of the 
sergeant-at-arms.  The decision comes out as "I don't like what you 
said.  The explanation for my decision might not be that good but I 
already made up my mind".  The rest of the posters do not identify 
themselves unless a person considers that [local-part]@gmail.com 
conveys any meaningful information.

Regards,
-sm