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

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

When I was / am in leadership roles, I consider that I am not permitted 
to block email from any IETF participants.  (Having said that, it is not 
written down and other people may have different understandings.)

Yours,

Joel

On 10/2/2022 12:59 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 14:31 +1100 Lloyd W
> <lloyd.wood=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>> On 2 Oct 2022, at 00:57, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fully agree. I have a list of people I mute, and that works
>>> for me.
>> Maybe the IESG, IAB, wg chairs and other responsible people
>> should compare notes on who they're each muting and filtering
>> - and why.
> Lloyd, I suggest that, if that group of people, but especially
> the IESG, start muting those whose messages they don't like
> --for any reason-- we go rapidly down the slippery slope toward
> having no opinions count that don't agree with the preferences
> of those in "the leadership". There may well be extreme cases,
> but that is what all of the other mechanisms that have been
> discussed, ultimately leading up to BCP 83, are about.
> Otherwise and independent of the wishes of the allegedly
> problematic author, the rest of us need to have the right to
> presume that the IESG (in particular) is hearing the voices of
> everyone in the community who might be expressing an opinion
> about a matter relevant to the IETF.
>
> If that sounds like I think a certain amount of abuse-tolerance
> goes with those roles when people volunteer for them _and_ that
> Nomcoms should consider observed low tolerance for criticism as
> disqualifying for AD (and some other) roles), well, yes.
>
> What decisions you, Rob, or myself might make about who or what
> to filter; messages we do or do not care to read carefully and
> in their entirity; etc., is another matter entirely: none of us
> have the responsibility to evaluate community consensus and do
> that fairly.
>
> And, again, if their perception is that the abuse and/or
> disruption level has gotten high enough that neither they nor
> anyone else should need to put up with more of it, that is what
> BCP 83 is about.
>
>     best,
>      john
>
>
>
>
>