Re: List moderator action

[Jacob Appelbaum <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot,

On 5/5/26 10:30, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Simon honestly...
> 
> On 05.05.2026 10:25, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> That wasn't my point.  My point was that we harm the IETF's 
>> relevance by banning people from making contributions related to 
>> non-hybrid/NIST PQ crypto.
> 
> He's banning himself.

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?

Kind regards,
Jacob Appelbaum