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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 05 October 2022 05:37 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0735C1524AE; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MW0_76y5vcx1; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AC43C14CE36; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 22:37:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id l22so20068268edj.5; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 22:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Tqu2ikG7CDwBVM26wsDCIIYLZPqUB3vlzQS0D+ew+AY=; b=Vhqn22LqhFdWquowPDKiq6votNRgCnaWCtwI74ToSHwjAIGYpmQroxbdd7BTTm7SFx 5U0R8KeKZNNK6aLWmGXLBbu25jYNB8NRVSbAd/t6tyFCcHNCz0m+nduqqMmqPs2O7fhX eW/PzQrYSHbrUii4Nlfg1DduU5Jv4fkQz7UzUIpZfdO3+MO1ZHQLA5pRxLvilv3gV/9N 5zr2PK+P6m1dBSPzgZMKGMtwJR6qF2nar3lvl8GUP4EGSIpTC5+lgIdhvAYFj+61Hc6h bM4pBeQdrHkV5CjwAHIlNK9gTFYJuAg5DfZXS47QdbnjMEXdFhOH6npTA7b++gA2csZ/ 0dAg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=Tqu2ikG7CDwBVM26wsDCIIYLZPqUB3vlzQS0D+ew+AY=; b=tHpc2s+hQncGO1qmkRF2bvo/lNsH77V/7St8gr4prHUQApOMtd8FNgnRQviLzCN890 3B41zi62PTWrqVRoyUUj3tQ1SiBHpVXhp0MoZKTIohv0CYAshQiMEB7hU4aByJ5Q7o8b ObjXEXWdLoLOORD00WNzSKZ900yxk+g7VQQh0khWk0g7uXJgeDi8vGwaUentDPtBmV5j SmBL3tt20upVunp2Oq8UbQYbFEWwZR8lxOjs57k8IpTMmqR0T7039rBUh/TsUA9fQP1O igzKRVPuqSOa2A1zZcekdM+KVfrJ4HtajHQBhoii19gFk+Pt71TAye2LFnL5bkpzodOr KBAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2bqbJRFaoWCXdqEof633xaKbj7LO+FraI29/s/3jPkPB6oOzc7 +iQDR0opn1Z/plLwF8U+VhCbCyM/cIscCmx+Zd8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5+/R6+ov4nfMHt+rasLggq7rWY66LriqfHKMmt6SVuifLhahpnVYpOTDjYMRcACJp+md8FdPfN8/hVlbSZuGo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:34cc:b0:451:62bf:c816 with SMTP id w12-20020a05640234cc00b0045162bfc816mr27235017edc.213.1664948238260; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 22:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAChr6SzpnbuuQmhfpa+XJf_jGSnXMKE7iucFW0byPu9wtFBy5Q@mail.gmail.com> <30516683-637B-4487-84C2-293B77602D0A@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <30516683-637B-4487-84C2-293B77602D0A@nostrum.com>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 22:37:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SyyEjZvADgSeOMoCoBh3kVLDEvK=MqWPK7o6KiEEnCz5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Cc: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f9e4f05ea42f87c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/TkMoLE4AaFY3ZCLOuvYUrDBoPME>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 05:37:25 -0000

That’s the issue. If I wanted to read “unpopular opinions”, I could use
Reddit or 4chan. Those venues are designed to do that.

There’s no reason for the IETF to host that kind of content. Just get back
to work.

thanks,
Rob

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 22:24 Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> I did not deny that there have been abusive messaging patterns.  If that
> was not clear, I apologize.
>
> Ben.
>
> On Oct 5, 2022, at 12:20 AM, Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Well, in this message, from the PR action, he just calls me stupid.
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/68a4amMa1aiaRUPzPGgXdiY9gHg/
>
> I’m not stupid.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 22:06 Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> I have, for the last several days, been trying to compose a response, and
>> haven’t gotten it right yet. But Christian expressed it perfectly. That is,
>> I would support the PR-action, but I have reservations. It is not clear to
>> me that the growing consensus separates "unpopular opinions" from the
>> "abusive messaging patterns”.
>>
>> Don’t get me wrong; I think there is enough to support the PR-Action
>> based strictly on the latter. But Lar’s message could be interpreted to
>> also be concerned with the former. I would like the IESG to clarify the
>> distinction and draw some bright lines.
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 2022, at 11:19 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/29/2022 9:15 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
>> >> Following community feedback after various incidents, as documented
>> below, the
>> >> IESG has initiated a posting rights (PR) action that would restrict
>> the posting
>> >> rights of Dan Harkins, as per the procedures found in BCP 83 (RFC
>> 3683).
>> >> Specifically, his posting privileges to these lists would be suspended:
>> >>
>> >> * admin-discuss
>> >> * gendispatch
>> >> * ietf
>> >> * terminology
>> >>
>> >> In the IESG's opinion, this individual has a history of sending emails
>> that are
>> >> inconsistent with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154) and
>> thereby
>> >> "disrupt the consensus-driven process" (RFC 3683). Among these are
>> contributions
>> >> that:
>> >>
>> >> * Express racism in the form of denying, belittling, and ridiculing
>> anti-racist
>> >>   sentiment and efforts
>> >>
>> >> * Are rude and abusive, and often amount to insulting ridicule
>> >
>> > I understand that that the IESG want the "rude and abusive" behavior to
>> stop. I am however concerned that the action as written doesn't distinguish
>> clearly between censoring unpopular positions and censoring abusive
>> messaging patterns.
>> >
>> > I looked at Dan's posts listed in the last call, and I find a mix of
>> reasonable arguments followed by attacks, with quite a bit of trolling.
>> Take for example
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/i-d7HlWgrkmrVlC7JZQSXDwIJCQ/.
>> It argues that a word like "master key" is an established term of the art
>> whose origin is not tainted by racism, and that the IETF (or the IEEE)
>> should not attempt a systematic replacement. Whether one agrees or not,
>> that's a reasonable argument during a discussion of terminology. But then,
>> the message goes on with a rant about the political priorities and personal
>> ethics of the proponents of such replacements, and the IETF can do without
>> these kind of attacks. It can also certainly do with the kind of trolling
>> found in
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-On8AHrdnnCMlJOOyb1M1nlYMpk/,
>> in which Dan pretends to be offended by the use of the word "native" in
>> some computer languages.
>> >
>> > The IESG should clarify that unpopular opinions, per se, are OK. We
>> need many voices in any debate. Indeed, in the terminology debate, the IETF
>> eventually adopted the NIST guideline. This was significantly different
>> from the original proposal, but probably closer to IETF consensus.
>> >
>> > I am concerned that the sentence about "expressing racism by denying
>> anti-racist sentiment" can be misinterpreted, or misused. Clearly,
>> attacking or belittling people because of their race, religion, sexual
>> practices or culture has no place in the IETF. Personal attacks against
>> proponents of specific anti-racist actions is also wrong. But some
>> proposals motivated by anti-racism may well be misguided. Like any other
>> proposals, they should be debated based on their merits.
>> >
>> > I would like the IESG to rewrite its message and clearly indicate that
>> they are censoring personal attacks, ridiculing and trolling, but not
>> censoring the debate itself.
>> >
>> > -- Christian Huitema
>> >
>> > --
>> > last-call mailing list
>> > last-call@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>>
>> --
>> last-call mailing list
>> last-call@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>>
>