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

"Bless, Roland (TM)" <> Thu, 06 October 2022 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B48C14CF0C for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 07:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B9Q8_6MnObPW for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 07:52:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1398:2::10:80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D305C14F73E for <>; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 07:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2a00:1398:2:4006:e3bc:cf98:ec19:88fb] ( by with esmtpsa port 25 iface 2a00:1398:2::10:8 id 1ogSE6-0000Fz-Fj; Thu, 06 Oct 2022 16:51:54 +0200
Received: from [IPV6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53881D0001B; Thu, 6 Oct 2022 16:51:54 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 16:51:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-ATIS-Checksum: v3zoCAcc32ckk
X-ATIS-Timestamp: esmtpsa 1665067914.529384918
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 14:52:03 -0000

Hi Keith,

On 04.10.22 at 20:23 Keith Moore wrote:
> On 10/4/22 09:16, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
>> There have been repeated hints from various sides that the postings in 
>> question (may) have been hurting the feelings of IETF participants (or 
>> have been disturbing at least and clearly lacking respect for IETF 
>> participants).
> With respect, I disagree that this is a valid reason for censoring this 
> individual.  I also disagree that his postings were malicious or clearly 
> lacking respect for IETF participants. What's also clear is that this 
> effort is a personal attack on Dan, and that many of Dan's 
> supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as 
> personal attacks on himself or on the community.   While everyone would 
> do well to avoid resorting to ridicule out of anger at being attacked, 
> that's an important part of the context that many people seem to be 
> missing.

These comments are IMHO along the lines of a typical perpetrator-victim 

> Essentially, your argument amounts to an argument that it's okay for the 
> IETF leadership to attack individuals whose opinions they do not like, 
> or that it's okay for IETF leadership to amplify individuals whose 
> opinions are offensive to some, and for defensible reasons.

First of all, expressing racism is not the same thing as expressing an 
"unpopular opinion". Racism is simply not tolerable and I see that the
leadership has an obligation to act upon that, therefore it is not about
suppressing opinions that IETF leadership does not like. Second, even if
we leave racism aside, it is clear from Dan's postings that he is
discriminating against people of groups that the IETF should not
exclude (and human dignity is non-negotiable). His ridiculing and
belittling postings show a clear lack of respect for individuals of
these groups and it is unprofessional if the community repeatedly
requested to stop that behavior, but he nevertheless still continues.
Having a different opinion on how to deal with  diversity and inclusion
is ok, but disturbing and disrupting the IETF consensus-driven process
by repeatedly posting offensive messages is not.