Re: Complaint to ADs regarding censorship of dissent

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Even when I re-read myself before posting, it seems that I was not successful in spotting ambiguities in my earlier email message. So, let me correct it.

> There was indeed an issue
> technical glitch/misconfiguration (we are all human beings prone to
> mistakes) of the mailman3 moderation settings

s/indeed/apparently/ as I did not have a look in the logs and my less-than-perfect knowledge of mailman3 would have prevented me to assert my statement. As I wrote in my previous email, the tools team could probably provide the logs (if they do not contain anything private/confidential of course).

> The comment about the WGLC is still in time (and what would have
> counted anyway was the send date, not the email release date)

The use of "counted" was incorrect in English (my French language hit again... the correct word could have been "accounted" ?), it obviously does not mean "voting" but more that the email is "valid" and should be addressed on the TLS WG list by the I-D editors/authors.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, D. J. Bernstein's email finally reached the [e-mail], and the associated mail archive, i.e., it will have to be addressed.

Hope this clarifies my previous email message,

Regards,

-éric