Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Richard, I think you are confusing two distinct points.

1. The thread that resulted from the IESG's own posting had become utterly
pointless since it consisted entirely of two sides of the question repeating
themselves. It was quite reasonable for the IETF Chair to request people to
refrain and to take the discussion of the only relevant I-D (whatever its
merits) to the most relevant WG. I'd probably have done the same thing
in her shoes.

2. Now the SaA team has chosen to censor Nadim Kobeissi for presuming to
challenge that action. As far as I can see, Nadim's postings IN NO WAY
qualify as "a pattern of abuse". There are four in total. The two under
the subject "Terminology discussion threads" are principally about IESG
actions, not about the original topic. The second one is deeply sarcastic
but I think we all understand why. The two under the subject "IESG
Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language" are IMHO quite useful
contributions compared to most of that thread,  and they were sent well
*before* the IETF Chair's request to refrain from the discussion, and
therefore cannot legitimately be considered by the SaA.

In my opinion the SaA had absolutely no grounds to censor Nadim; to
the contrary he was saying something important about the IESG. I hope
he's aware of the appeal process.

Incidentally, the SaA message included the phrase "against the direction
from the IETF Chair." It's certainly true that the Chair can give directions
to the SaA team, but the Chair can't give directions to the IETF; as Fred
Baker used to say, "I'm called the chair because everybody sits on me."

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 14-Aug-20 08:31, Richard Barnes wrote:
> RFC 3005 says plainly:
> 
> """
>    Inappropriate postings include: ... Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject
>    The IETF Chair, the IETF Executive Director, or a sergeant-at-arms
>    appointed by the Chair is empowered to restrict posting by a person,
>    or of a thread, when the content is inappropriate
> """
> 
> Given the level of unprofessional discourse in the muted conversation, muting the entire topic seems like an entirely appropriate recourse.
> 
> --Richard
> 
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 4:26 PM Michael StJohns <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     On 8/13/2020 3:48 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>     > At least there seems to be sufficient +1 from distinguished community
>     > members such as current or past IAB, IESG members, IAB Liaison, IETF ISOC
>     > appointee, IRTF and NomCom chair to hope that the action taken was rightfully
>     > within the privilege of IETF chair according to the rules.
> 
>     Mike StJohns, Past IAB, Past Nomcom Chair
>     Scott Bradner, Past IAB, Past Area Director
>     Randy Bush, Past Area Director
>     Charlie Perkins,  Past IAB
> 
>     (sorry if I've missed other roles...)
> 
>     So what's your point?
> 
>     In any event, my opinion is that this action was NOT taken "rightfully
>     within the privilege of the IETF chair according to the rules", but I'm
>     withholding further judgement until the Chair responds to my request to
>     clarify which part of 3005 they believe applies and grants authority for
>     a mass PR threat.
> 
>     >
>     > If this step was ultimately determined (by whom... ?) not to be within
>     > the privilege of IETF chair then i am bit worried about what i would
>     > have to think about all those +1.
> 
>     I'm not sure why.  Everyone has opinions.  Some are more useful than
>     others, and each of us will have an opinion on that topic as well.
> 
> 
>     Later, Mike
> 
> 
> 
>