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

Ted Lemon <> Tue, 04 October 2022 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98F0C1524B9 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1-UUFN36llj for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:01:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1130]) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00166C1524B5 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 00721157ae682-333a4a5d495so148629367b3.10 for <>; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:01:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=fHOUCEr76IDfHzMRIQ3IQUB/SK96T21mNHLL3TrwfSs=; b=vp5c2PjLGLjzajv70t4FuzJvhFaDC1edJJfM3St1irWpzilhPKrlIaygDYuPFxv+UO vKGRcbZ5XH1FJL1q0uk6d7b/JnB/KY9QINc1nkqI5YuActQRHSLJzMEVyubHnnvcviu4 m1Mqe8Fxc+Ayd3lPSv5AuM2MZ0eJMmsigldptf59Tb/XDlWBsHYDrX70mqlLnCdVkiSv 7HriHzWCJltWQeSGWTYwdPO++PwZvjZB3Zqn2cB6Z56MrRiDoXsdjsySuyY45uMJZ7Hk bBSNsOsCoi6W7izhzpEKcl805O1SxEY/r/63ea+kteMHSabcfxqstyx1QOGYD4bj0wKD Dq1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=fHOUCEr76IDfHzMRIQ3IQUB/SK96T21mNHLL3TrwfSs=; b=e2vIExINfSfwKdav6MZV8V4WK5T9EkqZN2tDor5gRlgeZAS5Wa5Qj4cM1yCwLsu5gX cOLl1NxkCC9y0NM+zkcKuxHEBMHA1pKx0p2R1NePoWHJowawdLRXE4ItJ5TRZa+iE6lU Gf21rP3RWt0/duenEDL7d276bGRm0ii2jDXEpT8EIj/jtSeiURNDVdESMFHuzuXIkdez HasT4KqdoLobLEwjfYt/K9U918CtOs0U4JEP/UZTCBI+FaKZNCQQ6/tGOHlhpIx7y6fR Rx/u/G1NdEJAEcRWCjQ6riqQQMdGpEMhlczDeBea0yITNKwiGtmQ8nSFWJKeFcOExrIi ynBQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf06MIzlTVrFXdABWCK6uXpfIVtPNiwL4f74GyNyvah459woZy9t ogzZPJifZSpqYeh8v2JCjA55wKPoJLJD/5XPrmBRLyJkrFZIQw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6Xzkso5bdbb797a7R/XrT+F9rJn96uMQhTF/8bl/ZTtE7LZ0hxAc8L8G0wtYqO5bixsSi2QIgEyT8tA5eIX7s=
X-Received: by 2002:a0d:e811:0:b0:35c:157f:2d54 with SMTP id r17-20020a0de811000000b0035c157f2d54mr4574683ywe.308.1664924496088; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 19:01:25 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002ae5b305ea3d7110"
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 23:01:41 -0000

I think there is no point in continuing to engage in discussion here. It’s
pretty clear what the consensus is. Its pretty clear that Keith will reply
to each message here. Keith is one person. I expect that the IESG will
count his hundred messages as a single objection, not a hundred. I
appreciate that he wants to participate in this decision, and he has a
right to do so. But we don’t need to argue with him—the IESG knows how to
evaluate consensus, and our continued engagement should not affect this

Op di 4 okt. 2022 om 16:37 schreef Keith Moore <>

> On 10/4/22 16:06, Tom Beecher wrote:
> 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.
> This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are saying
> that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal "attack",
> they should be afforded complete license to respond in any manner they so
> choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier version of "Well he
> started it."
> Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.
> I certainly acknowledge the potential problem.   But it's also problematic
> to say "it's okay for IESG to attack people, or to amplify people who
> insult/attack the IETF community, but not okay for people to respond."
> In other words, who gets to get away with being a bully?
> Really I think everybody has an obligation to try to keep from adding
> energy to such feedback loops.  But community leaders (especially IESG but
> also others in authority) have an even greater obligation to do that than
> ordinary participants, because the potential for harm is greater if someone
> in power is adding fuel to the fire.
> Keith
> --
> last-call mailing list