SaA Team actions (was: Re: Terminology discussion thread)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Brian,

Thanks for posting this.  Rather than say "+1", I want to
emphasize two things in your note and expand a bit on one of
them.  First, I agree that the discussion had gotten out of hand
and that it was entirely reasonable and appropriate for the IETF
Chair to request people to hold the discussion for a while or
take it elsewhere.  However, the key word is "request".  I am
not aware of anyone, at any time in the IETF's history, having
the authority to shut down a discussion topic that is clearly
relevant to the IETF (if it were not, the IESG would have been
out of line for starting the discussion).  As Mike points out,
we have assorted remedies for individuals who repeatedly
generate off-topic, disruptive, or otherwise problematic
postings, but those are about individual behaviors, not subject
matter.

So, it seems to me that there are two possibilities.  One is
that the SaA team has shown extremely bad judgment in their
interpretation of what constitutes disruptive or inappropriate
behavior or that they misunderstood the scope and implications
of the IETF Chair's recommendation (not only in Nadim Kobeissi's
case but in the only slightly less clear case of Lloyd Wood on
the same subject matter)  and should reconsider and explain
their position.   The other is that this was actually done at
the specific direction of the IETF Chair, in which case I think
the specifics of that direction should be made public to the
community so we can all evaluate whether our discussions of
these actions are still appropriate in the IETF.

   john


--On Friday, August 14, 2020 09:16 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>