Re: List moderator action

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jacob, Simon. All,
>This comes off as pretty Orwellian Eliot. Dan did not ban himself as a
>matter of fact.
>
>Dan appears to be subject to sanction(s) including moderation that has
>blocked a new and valid complaint about a claim of consensus to the tls
>list for around a week. This moderation has a material impact on the
>outcome of the PQ/T security of the TLS protocol during a WGLC. That may
>not be the intention of the moderators but it is an observable result.
>It is only a visible result because Dan had the foresight to email all
>dissenters, the tls list, and the chairs a copy of the complaint.
>Noteworthy is that the tls list has still not received a copy of it from
>Dan directly.
>
>There is obviously a dispute about the overall situation and Dan isn't
>the only person that sees a different perspective as is evidenced by
>Simon's good faith read.
>
>I find Simon's interpretation to be a compelling explanation for what is
>going on, and reasonable people do disagree. I had previously thought
>differently and Simon changed my mind. It all seems so pointless, right?
>Why would Dan pick this hill of all the hills? Well, Simon has found a
>plausible explanation. That doesn't mean he is correct, of course. I
>guess none of us have directly asked Dan?
>
>Simon's most recent question was not included in your reply but it seems
>worth addressing when he asked:
>
>>>Where does it follow from https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well/ 
>>>that IESG statements override BCP9, BCP78 etc? I can't find the 
>>>term 'IESG statement' in any of BCP9, BCP78 etc documents.
>
>It does not appear from the evidence that Simon is alone in his analysis
>of the texts and what I perceive as arguments from authority probably
>won't resolve the issue. Those arguments do however result in people
>being moderated at the precise time that there is a WGLC in the tls
>mailing list.
>
>I concur with Simon, I share his curiosity in the questions that he
>posed, and I would welcome being humbled on the facts. I read Simon as
>being a good faith contributor whose questions are not being addressed
>reasonably.
>
>>He knows what he has to do to participate and chooses not to.
>
>If the goal is to have a just and fair outcome, and not merely a one-
>sided interpretation rule following with casting of blame, I would
>suggest extending some grace about the dispute until it is fully
>resolved one way or another.
>
>It sounds like you've made up your mind and in your mind I understand
>that your perspective is that Dan is "banning himself." That doesn't
>sound like a good faith reading of the intentions of a long standing
>participant's behavior to me. Merely sanctioning someone doesn't change
>Simon's fair reading of the relevant regulations (i.e.: RFC text, BCP
>text, etc.).
>
>Amending the relevant text raised by Simon seems like closing a loophole
>if people generally don't like that read. I understand that a few people
>would like to have a discussion about Simon's reading that focuses on
>why that reading is right or wrong.
>
>This discussion quickly turns into an elephant in the room where the
>entire situation leads to a frustrating tension: if Simon's read were to
>be acknowledged, and if a change of the relevant text attempted, then it
>would indicate that Dan fairly disagrees about the interpretation of the
>regulations as they stand. It would also signal that by changing
>the text for a specific interpretation tomorrow that there would be some
>agreement about what it meant yesterday and what it means for Dan's
>actions today.
>
>That discussion about changing the text could reveal that Dan is wrong
>or that indeed Dan isn't banning himself. That is probably part of why
>that discussion isn't happening as the central theme. It is easier to
>demonize Dan as doing it to himself though, so that is part of what we
>see happening here. It is gross to witness and it is a failure of
>leadership on display for the entire world to see. That is another part
>of the harm raised and it would behoove people to at least simulate some
>empathy with other's views on the matter.
>
>What is the steelman of Dan's perspective and actions, in your eyes, I
>wonder?

I had to look up the meaning of one word in the text which I quoted: 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/steelman

It look me about an hour to read the appeal which was recently filed 
with the Internet Architecture Board.  There is a technical 
objection(s) (in my opinion) which could get lost because of the 
procedural disagreements included in the submission.  There is now a 
disagreement on the interpretation of BCP 78.  The words "IESG 
statement" do not appear in BCP 78 or BCP 79.

There was recently a complaint about a decision taken by a working 
group chair(s) (re. second paragraph which I quoted).  Looking at the 
matter in the best light, I'd say that the complaint was sent to the 
working group mailing list.  I did not receive the complaint from the 
mailing list through.  This could be because of a notice included at 
the bottom of the complaint.  This may be linked to what I wrote in 
the previous paragraph, re. BCP 78.

There is a metaphor mentioned in the quoted text: 
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/the-elephant-in-the-room 
I am not sure whether it would be something to do with the 
interpretation of BCP 78.  If that is the case, It is unlikely that 
the disagreement is about the interpretation given that the notice 
did not appear in messages which the appellant sent around September 2025 [1].

The words "good faith" are mentioned twice in the text which I 
quoted.  There is a definition of "good faith" at 
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/good-faith  Whether there is 
good faith or not is a matter of appreciation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. It's based on information in the IETF records.