Re: Please welcome the facilitators at

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 13 November 2016 12:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9281296C9 for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:32:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.287
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=XuXB/JV+; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Cyk+5noz
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3XYA7IXEWkl for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148191296AE for <>; Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:32:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uADCVg2i027417 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:31:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1479040313; x=1479126713; bh=xmXh3Boez4bBcCdFm1AXaUaFJS5iZqJqebEph9sjsio=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XuXB/JV+2SEsOKZWFLe+XX/F9n3nsktZyjTdlRHwxhyiLly/qt6YPL/qYFJhauKZu /VA71JnU7TPLjK6ziIT5IQbOgDr80c8eR3b4snH5IABwPA+iaHzSMjvDhiHwOzGcii 8RB7wAnHSol4dUbWZZInKA79Z92plsV8k2BmpqfA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1479040313; x=1479126713;; bh=xmXh3Boez4bBcCdFm1AXaUaFJS5iZqJqebEph9sjsio=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Cyk+5nozk5EzDv6/JTcaKvFnJWgqlmK54LTjr96iVnaYsXDQK7n+D4FMoRl7PA15k rAYyeIqlkZiO3ttqZS/jhwzwAtapkRh1+MXp9BZ51c/bI1d5zahhO28Cj6Xzk/UZ0J kN2zgRd9O4MreAirfE1eZ5uWrbnt/md16LGI79QE=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 04:23:20 -0800
From: S Moonesamy <>
Subject: Re: Please welcome the facilitators at
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:32:02 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 11:19 10-11-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
>   *  There needs to be an institutional commitment to the exercise 
> of that role.  That's more than just naming some folk.  The 
> relatively easy part is that it means ensuring that facilitators 
> have the skillset and it means training others to appreciate that skillset.
>But 'training' is not enough, but there also needs to be the 
>application of leverage over those who contribute in a fashion that 
>works against the facilitation. Unfortunately, the IETF has a deep 
>and persistent unwillingness to apply such pressures.  So folk who 
>misbehave persistently do not, themselves, get trained to change 
>their behavior.  (Folk are likely to disagree with this assessment, 
>especially because of various, recent documents and discussion --as 
>well as the very rare interventions along the lines of "folk, we can 
>do better" spread amongst multiple contributors privately or an 
>entire list publicly, although such interventions have no training 
>effect, long term -- but the fact that people continue to feel 
>permission to attack others, on a regular basis, serves as a visible counter.)

Thanks for the feedback.

The expression of a thought or idea which is acceptable to people in 
one country may be viewed as offensive by people in another 
country.  The way in which the thought is expressed may be acceptable 
to people in one country and might be viewed as offensive to people 
in another country.  There are also accepted norms to consider, e.g. 
do the subscribers of this mailing list find censorship acceptable or not?

I read the thread at  The 
person mentioned that he is new to this mailing list.  Did any of the 
messages on the thread have content which violated the rules of 
process?  Was there any harassment?  Was the topic relevant to the 
IETF?  Who in the IETF is responsible for that topic?  There aren't 
any easy answers to those questions.

S. Moonesamy