Re: Terminology discussion threads

[Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]>]

Dear Barbara,

The email you link to has a body comprised entirely of a single negative integer.

I have been accused of a “pattern of abuse” for expressing concern regarding the incorrect application of RFC 3005. The behavior or the IESG on this topic has been shocking, unprecedented and authoritarian. I believe that there is an instance of ideologically motivated corruption happening here and intend to follow up on this within the IETF.

It is incredible that this is how the IESG has acted to intimidate and silence one of the only minorities that even bothered to say anything in this entire discussion. This is incredible.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 13 Aug 2020, at 6:48 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> I see that the emails from others above expressing *approval* for the IESG
>> are not receiving correctional visits from the SAA, so I wanted to make sure
>> that I expressed myself in The Correct Manner moving forward:
>>> 
>> 
>> I've seen emails on this thread of two sorts so far:
>> 
>> Quite a few emails have
>> 1 - Expressed approval of the decision, and
>> 2 - Not addressed any of the substantive issues from the previous discussion.
>> 
>> A small number of emails have
>> 1 - Not expressed approval of the decision, and
>> 2 - Also discussed the substance of the issues from the previous discussion.
>> 
>> I propose the likely possibility that variable #2, not variable #1, is
>> the reason the emails of the latter sort have been addressed by the SAA,
>> while emails of the former sort have not been.  It's just that the
>> correlation of the two variables has been perfect so far, I think.
> 
> This email expressed disapproval of the decision without discussing issues of the previous discussion, and this email was not addressed by the SAA:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UQgVv-dkk0uNhWcML8N-7sg_1nw/
> 
> Therefore, it is clearly allowed to express disapproval of the decision to end discussion. 
> Barbara