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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

On 03/10/2022 23:22, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 09:02 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Keith, you wrote:
>>
>>> Whether or not it's warranted, it's clearly a personal attack
>>> on Dan.
>>
>> No. It's directed very explicitly at a particular pattern of
>> behaviour on some specific mailing lists. It doesn't say that
>> he may no longer contribute, say, to Security Area activities.
>
> 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.

Indeed.

When I read the first message of this thread, I thought that the person 
cited was a familiar name but from the IRTF (and from the Security Area, 
not from the mailing lists that are specified).  Since this is an IETF 
action, then I imagine that it would be up to the IRSG to decide whether 
or not action is warranted for IRTF lists.  I see no such sign - I do 
not know if the IRTF has any equivalent procedure.  Certainly in other 
matters, such as determining consensus, I see the IRTF as being more 
encompassing than the IETF.

Tom Petch

>      john