Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

"lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk" <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk> Wed, 05 October 2022 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E7DC14CE36 for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ckunPzhYJIxU for <last-call@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sonic303-21.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic303-21.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [77.238.178.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28ED6C14F738 for <last-call@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 17:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s2048; t=1664929916; bh=Vzg4oR813khuUcxQ3WNyk4iVy0/k6SX1do0Ru26BW9E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=TGwnHDE5vLzqf74MpuyYWz5qt+jaffFdrWaOBeXWiVtbLMIqDtxq1mg84LaM74MsLMQBGdPLHSbqsRGpWeITpA0eVcBffqxCG7sTAo+WwtXy3toOOElq2ttLpfVyHzK7KdguVQatSMUJlZ1r0VK0powTet/B6jINRVmXtN7VBinkBxp0JBsqAB5p+mGowKbrVXUCFYSqPSrQljIp+aW6A4Wx4/Sekril2/4ZybR2i3JpnqiqsC+lYhYhfjY+x4Dzm8htZSmGU9WNv8uEcJayZomCL4r8UFpNeiM2vkQy1L2YUWxiZQ3pRyoWxWqqMLc2vYtxQ0a27Y9g5ngpuCV+oA==
X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1664929916; bh=WCuqsMNmTLpDO/ooBSwqItrgjru698uy2rAN12LXp2e=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:From:To:Subject:From:Subject; b=i+ZhrRp7SMpPskUQtNdG7R6k/nh+bEEU5tkb2lsCiuJNiY8p+KjJ/OB6htOf7lEf/aSJ7P2UOb5ZyO0nfZPXDeeFWB7Nho8+f1tzmZi2POuGE4cNCzbNoGC9bDTz2WWMsHRLy9wS8ScwTmzgLa+emugWQLc/5uj4W92VFshe3DoFHWIYbhhGe0rgbvhO6ZozyPw+ikAQnUMuIozlpvd/YahDWpVsRE6m1EHVtSFICl+BCtGO8n7b1eZaPnlR9/a6CuMue4L4pM083z+WARbS2GuWsHnU2+l2ZwHFP37Q9vBmH+lDnqNUi6Ql3hpH0B8nv9QrZK0beH4yRYfie728Zg==
X-YMail-OSG: 5Fb1dG4VM1mA8FSCBJmTiAZxRcbmIqnT_TlRYfHax0yi4pnjQOYNm7quv9AshrG lZV0u9VE7c2JHedyoispXomxtheWdSfxbdBVOOuUuYZATnOzUPkv3oQIY8VBh5XpMtddLG7NRFIy w_gMTz95XZbLicd.z3R7I8BSCUc_VEjbWbbacQvVXBp8mad8zhNkDJ2.tVbAh_dm7NoT4CXLQtPD xMjPAvrSgH6CzM3xQABc.mlpDguTBYzoE0oD2QLkBJdQ6K12royySrEV6fNjUzXB_I9XzlYE07eF FzGVN9jrltY4BQikqrDlrhq5Yy73wdpC3nCFGTvednaM9JW5cYsQVvBaZ9Ovp51YHO1DzzWuu9hv JbXboI20u5tw6o2Jpq6Tb.2CmHeyoSsdB7o5SQyqjNbHIC551aGEP8AkPsAN0ul4_lbU00DzGbZG 44EjNXogso3M_9TXLjvKY.yrwrymDFhvrKLjd4M9SmVIlasdXGnzdYVXoRZE5NleMrqYAdW87HfO 8nPhFGayxGd0S3uNUV18w3M1MTIMNlMv.P6BJIlbOhegi2rWbfcRMxpVq7JVLXUg3Zigdis1Od_k l_tlUJadfbVOFoQcZ9HhpMoPYrZZhN67F6jQICVxXPEY0t3RJQp27genWGsUfKwpa0NYXRMNMZxZ 1bcodRb8qvbrq_hsY8xQ4LAwP_LdF8unQF6z.aJlaYHbtvY_ErJamPuNoHQsmHNkHKXzt5FjaDW6 wEFEVoEb_JrOFbB0ODM3GP63Ekrk3zfAbtDw8B18HsOpx5F045ca5i8cTx57LpbOFsTPxcYDXIev bxCz7v8UVs2wAAlfJl6jeRBoxst83LKK8iwi91R47LAYZBOm7qQNqQE8DJkCMZ.f.ybS93Arsel0 V6SrJvtNcYKb2G2wvIb_i_DqF0gbACqL0TDQZenZlNcVcMg_.V6cSh3kzKMVL3UvNVpKpGzNWwoK NzCQuYj9AzmjNiSwh5D34_AV_E7LuX2WEcPTP2STAorgB55jwKJ.zkjn632okgD4vww5aWgefm0g 90L6AiOJM8giukZDcRcPKZ2BbD939KyC5pFJEzYqgKwda0nPBW9h.GpQplYhSuDtmuVaeu5Jm6x. I4XIdKvJ8oGdGPGcPB85VnS6NRTTMOpdSPt70KF5TvfAIHWD6ykvf8u9.L56ht_fYi5nN86uCsoF sV1a3rlcUQY81naiT8Y4wKkVCPkQpPq1WEt9M0ofA7V2cBBVJ5ySzOQJrwcxQS2pCAOuN5cDB4xJ Nux3B.jdWc5EoBdGY_PMfVwQ4B1HIlZkhXAvxI5nujfvvjmn5Xu17Zq63kaqRiBsPGC6e7m1Iisx UdUrRCiD_aDTx7Xsox0iLOMeMXyunfQOAPKRAbn8ePNL3oUlTiMGJNjpsKC6DZhinPMT_ORs5ddL .FSKQ4pyB2SD4E4ppLZyEf9uVerFHkk1aG2iFjANardk0a_VtBuNAaTTUqCgOFRE1815wopJ9c7. C0u9gFT8kdh.QYsstSo9Iab.ZgNIqRluqCbX15XMRf.bEMnrwopk0ylJU_BjIhzgPGvOeToMJFRP kzpAapTEBpkgW51xojbdXCDVyVzhBk2rEL6PEt4DopG_HTZXp_JzV5OdLJJJdNoQGhAWHJzH5a.s 2X8Jc1kIIOHOt.p60rGBYIzWtECeDOWrv3CUwUMONtotAtK7d9VWdFgml7kIbaqtd2iGWegtoM2T PqSM8hBMIUeBKF2JGtNNV2vW5qsiqolBgZat5BYsv8124CqkfFKZzvHkG1Km4pwFEpEU_Ooq3uD0 5jm_49GvzUyBMuoKMTlTijtDvYrLtVCwxSiMU1Wpys_aFAX9iIlIDEsvR32UOAm.iDe7SQ7QBmmO m3MjSmv_4reCatH7LiB3apr.4.5eOnp7ljOQ_NAWC2lE47k.3ixHX7NitwIqW3VJQ3mZpqrOvRBt 4JBfyLpETdZIi8pHBuPnnN8M2_6N99xZs_N03g79thpgJZ6Fo8qQHiNb6kSYrdokwNx9NSN1glL8 r.4ZEvDgcISsjgI3FlDJluHNG9jIWN5VY1u_YgOMAf.UA.jsFG4P6ipX04LqksO6g2.fGh95JEQ2 bH85SxAqTeN6aDDu0cEn4UB.ZvYvc4_SBc0_m0CvPskf7DF585TxT0hXMUHt9_I9stbewoLdSpcI C4Adp3IlseSbcmDw1d2tun.8yLwDFb3_VIdaYFJqg.2tWMAwsRnkfAKu3LiGyZ36zVVDjZvbUAaF MHcSLs3rQpZoVZxZpDQ--
X-Sonic-MF: <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic303.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 00:31:56 +0000
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 00:31:55 +0000
From: "lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk" <lloyd.wood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <1576313431.7621554.1664929915163@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <abab18a9-c611-f85b-f797-59bd302f0c4a@network-heretics.com>
References: <CFE25E25-D131-468E-9923-80350D6216F3@ietf.org> <CAMm+Lwg4ZVW617hPBaLxHF8jJpm9pq2s66hO2LFr+-f1JAe9MA@mail.gmail.com> <abf3716a-0c87-ba7b-1e3c-f7d89f2da988@network-heretics.com> <CAPt1N1kNpfTG0AKzVN+LTt9wcwPHmbDqSSENuroMu_6EfvQ2wQ@mail.gmail.com> <d645ffda-4511-c555-8fc3-cb771243b360@network-heretics.com> <96ebb83d-6800-1760-2772-1af912b34413@nostrum.com> <6f6b2619-71a1-560f-3e9d-af522bad11af@network-heretics.com> <af07b879-0be7-b47d-7ec4-59da2b8eedc6@nostrum.com> <1973054181.725521.1664759781765@email.ionos.com> <21b4e88e-c33c-08fb-398c-df10924bbf15@network-heretics.com> <CAL0qLwaOuyN8LB75ZWiWXraOay+LRcstLe2_oehm0_sQ3uWx4w@mail.gmail.com> <7d97cb34-b0dc-4dd9-9b53-ffbf7c5d8f17@network-heretics.com> <e345ec9b-1a69-7085-1d0b-7dbcb82c36fe@gmail.com> <4D6C23FCA0D271F939E9E266@PSB> <abab18a9-c611-f85b-f797-59bd302f0c4a@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.20702 YMailNorrin
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/0GDzeW-dxS9acR2JmPGyydbi8ng>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 00:32:01 -0000

> And yet, such interpretations and reactions often result from genuine misunderstandings
> rather than any intention of insult or malice.

Keith

Harkins told me he thought I had dementia.

that is deliberate, it is insulting, it is malicious, and it is bullying.

Stop making excuses for him.

(I no longer read or reply to private mail from Keith.)








On Tuesday, 4 October 2022 at 15:53:00 GMT+11, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote: 






On 10/3/22 18:22, John C Klensin wrote:


>  Brian, while I agree about the "pattern of behavior" my
> understanding of the BCP, Marshall's intent at the time, and
> what we have done since, Dan (or anyone else similarly
> sanctioned) could participate on other mailing lists and in
> other activities but only as long as the maintainers of those
> lists felt his behavior was appropriate to their work and either
> represented a change of behavior from the behaviors cited in the
> PR-action proposal.   If they concluded they were seeing the
> same patterns of disruption-causing behavior that caused the
> PR-action for the IETF list and other lists, they could ban him
> there too and do so without further warnings, etc.
> 

John,

I don't intend to single you or this message out specifically, but I'm starting to be uneasy about an insistence from several people on prohibiting "disruption-causing behavior" along with the vagueness inherent in that term.

I certainly believe that one should avoid insults, accusations of malice, and other inflammatory statements that essentially demand a defensive response that is likely to derail productive discussion.   And yet, such interpretations and reactions often result from genuine misunderstandings rather than any intention of insult or malice.   A quick clarification or apology usually suffices to avoid further derailment, but it doesn't always work.

I fear, for example, that some people consider it "disruptive" to merely express an unpopular opinion, or an opinion that conflicts with one that some people consider sacred or unquestionable, or perhaps only seeking to clarify one's opinion or its relationship to others' opinions.   I've received some private replies to this thread accusing me of such disruption because I'm "in the rough" (their words), as if I have an obligation to be silent just because several other people have expressed support for this PR.   Not only do I believe it's not wrong to express an unpopular opinion (indeed, sometimes it's an obligation), consideration of divergent and outlying opinions is fundamentally necessary to establishing even a rough consensus.   If such opinions are suppressed due to either rules or social pressure, there's no real consensus, only the illusion of consensus.   And the outlying opinions are often useful to consider when gauging the degree of consensus reached.

I have sometimes been accused of endlessly repeating the same argument, when I was actually trying to refine and clarify the argument, attempting to improve it over time based on feedback.   That's exactly what you do when trying to build consensus, but some people seem to presume that they get to decide quickly which opinions might eventually win consensus versus which opinions won't.   We all have opinions about that, I suspect, but not all of us think we have the right to use those opinions to dictate others' behavior.

It's hard to avoid the impression sometimes that some people want to silence opinions with which they disagree, or perhaps silence persons whom they consider bad actors, without actually bothering to try to understand those people's opinions.   Or to put it more charitably, attention is a precious quantity and our processes require a lot of it.

BCP83 itself says:


>     For example, if a working group is unable to reach consensus, this is
>    an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that working
>    group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously
>    disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the
>    consensus-driven process.  Interactions of this type are
>    fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a
>    participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve
>    consensus.  In other words, individual bad faith should not trump
>    community goodwill.
> 
(emphasis mine)

It's not bad faith to disagree.  It is not bad faith to try to clarify one's position or contrast it with others' positions in an effort to find common ground.   

It is bad faith to try to keep a group from coming to a conclusion (rough consensus or otherwise) by endlessly repeating points that had already been raised repeatedly, without providing new information or insight that might be useful in developing a consensus.  It is bad faith to attack everyone, or the opinion of everyone, who lends support to an emerging conclusion that's not the one you want.  It is especially bad faith to delay or hamper a working group because its work, while sound, threatens to harm one's employer's products or market position.   (And anyone who has been around here for a while has seen it happen.)   It is also bad faith to repeatedly make personal accusations against a contributor in an effort to distract from the technical points being discussed.   (That includes, BTW, accusations of acting in bad faith.)   It's even bad faith to amplify one or more divergent opinions in a deliberate attempt to delay or prevent consensus.   There are lots of kinds of bad faith, but it's hard to reliably tell when someone is acting in bad faith.

(As this discussion relates to this Last Call, it appears to me that several of Dan's messages were reacting to inflammatory messages from others, and Dan is being blamed for responding to them.  It's harder to establish that the messages being responded to were "disruption-causing behavior", but to some degree that depends on how you define it and how you interpret those messages.)

I also think that even under the best of conditions, convergence often takes time and requires patience, and is more aided by thoughtful responses (which often take time) than by quick ones.   A disturbing trend that I see is people insisting that speakers recognize what they call "consensus" very quickly, without allowing time for more thoughtful views to emerge, or for a variety of views to converge.  

I wonder if we'd be more productive if we didn't try to resolve everything in a hurry.


Keith


-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call