Re: Terminology discussion threads

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Warren,
At 07:30 AM 17-08-2020, Warren Kumari wrote:
>I'd like to ask y'all to reconsider leaving this list, because voices
>matter, individually and in the aggregate. The IESG needs to know
>every time it screws up (and, hopefully, if we get something right!).
>I completely understand -- and agree -- that participating in the list
>can be painful and difficult; but please, try to stick it out. We need
>to be building the society that we want; one part of this is
>participating in these uncomfortable discussions, and also letting the
>"leadership" know when we mess up. I know it sometimes might not seem
>like it, but we are listening, and really are trying to do the right
>thing.
>
>This list might not be where the technical work gets done, but it is
>one of the places where community is built. And a community matters
>for technical discussions, especially when there is dissenting opinion
>or a contentious topic.

First of all, thank you for posting the above message.

Nowadays, this mailing list is an avenue for subscribers who cannot 
pay the fee for the LLC's Pay-TV channel [1] to express their 
opinion.  It can also be useful for subscribers who do not have a 
"right to redress" [2].  That right is more important than the right 
to vote as it provides a protection against arbitrary decisions or 
procedural failures.

It is not possible to build a society when the leaders are happily 
cut off from the rest of the society, e.g. most Area Directors do not 
participate in ietf@ discussions, or when Area Directors decide what 
they believe is right without being accountable for their decisions.

It is the first time I see a subscriber receiving a warning from the 
Sergeant-at-Arms for sending an email [3] to the IETF Chair.  That is 
the kind of event you would see in so-called authoritarian 
regimes.  On a tangent, I previously suggested to an IAB member that 
the Sergeant-at-Arms is not a model to follow [4].

It is also the first time that I see a subscriber reprimanded for 
sending substantive messages to this mailing list.  This is part of 
an announcement whish is issued on a Last Call: Please send 
substantive comments ...  The IESG is requesting substantive comments 
in one context and forbidding it in another context.  Does that make 
sense to you?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OVpGoGUKoTBGS-9DUQ7tuCBV174/
2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moonesamy-recall-rev-03
3. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5q24VzOoxoC_3KbIKTACQ6FvLGY/
4. 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mZioFDZ34zQSh7fU23sK9lmqTg8/