Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG (was: Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins)

John C Klensin <> Wed, 12 October 2022 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B5EC14CE38; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id derwaPgg7Wg4; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DD0DC14CE37; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 11:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1oige0-000Pf9-FJ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:39:52 -0400
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:39:46 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Lars Eggert <>
cc:, The IESG <>
Message-ID: <9FF52F216C19DBD5F167A89C@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <E07D908383FCC3EF63B6E49F@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG (was: 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: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 18:39:56 -0000


Many thanks for the response.  It is approximately what I had
hoped for but about which I was unsure.

A clarification:  Yes, when I said "IESG statement", I was
referring to the statement of the rationale for the proposed PR
action in your posting announcing the Last Call, not an IESG
Statement in the more formal sense.

Let me also express the hope that, in addition to reviewing and
summarizing the comments and deciding whether to take the
PR-action or not, the IESG will take the wide range of issues
and opinions that have been raised (even or especially those not
specific to this particular PR-action question) as unsolicited
feedback from the community that we are in need of a serious
discussion of those issues.  I hope that it is possible to hold
such a discussion with a maximum of listening, trying to
understand each other's perspectives, and seeking an appropriate
balance and a minimum of heat, name-calling, and putting people
or their ideas into categories with negative connotations.   I
would not expect that to be easy, but I believe that, if we can
focus on what is required and how to work together for the IETF
to function in a way that makes the Internet better, we can do
it.  The future of the IETF may depend on it.

thanks again,

--On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 20:54 +0300 Lars Eggert
<> wrote:

> Hi John,
> apologies for the delay in responding.
> On 2022-10-7, at 1:02, John C Klensin <>
> wrote:
>> Is it possible to support the PR-action as described in the
>> Last Call without endorsing all of the IESG's statement or the
>> appropriateness of some of the examples?
> I believe so.
>> If so, how should that
>> be done in a way in which the concerns do not get lost?
> You would say so in your response to the last call.
>> In
>> particular, if the IESG concludes that community consensus
>> favors moving forward with the action itself, but that there
>> is at least a significant minority (enough to make the
>> consensus very rough) who are concerned about the IESG's
>> reasoning, will that be reflected in whatever final statement
>> the IESG makes on the matter and about its decision?
> The last call is on the specific PR action outlined in the
> last call email, with an explanation of why the IESG believes
> a PR action is warranted in this case, which is fundamentally
> based around the way in which Dan is choosing to express
> himself, and his unwillingness to change his ways. (And not
> that he is expressing an "unpopular opinion".)
> The IESG will review the received feedback to gauge whether
> there is, or is not, support for the PR action that is
> proposed. Specifically: should the procedures of BCP 83 be
> applied, revoking Dan Harkins' posting rights to
> admin-discuss, gendispatch, ietf, and terminology, and
> granting maintainers of other IETF mailing lists the
> discretion to also remove posting rights?
> Once the feedback period ends, the IESG will make a decision
> that takes the received feedback into account. We intend to
> summarize the received feedback when we decide to go ahead
> with or abandon the action. This would include feedback that
> supports the PR action but disagrees with (some of) the IESG's
> rationale for it.
>> And, fwiw, if, for some of us including myself, endorsing the
>> PR-action will be taken as an endorsement of the current IESG
>> statement and the methods and reasons for getting to this
>> point, then it might feel that the endorsement/ approval is
>> too expensive in terms of, e.g., the precedents that might be
>> set.
> An "IESG statement" is a specific, different thing
> (, and the
> IESG has not made a statement related to the proposed PR
> action. I believe with "IESG statement" you may mean the
> rationale for the proposed PR action included in the last call
> email.
> People can support the PR action without agreeing with the
> reasoning (in whole or in part) provided, or with how that
> reasoning was expressed. People are welcome to explain their
> own reasoning for supporting or opposing the PR action, but in
> the end the question for the IESG is simply one of whether to
> approve the PR action, or not. Support for the PR action
> doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of all the reasoning
> presented in the last call announcement.
> I hope this provides some clarity, also to others who have
> raised related questions on this thread.
> Thanks,
> Lars