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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Mon, 03 October 2022 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 6B0A9C152574; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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
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 1QEan-em_N_n; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 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 37885C1524B0; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 12:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:51]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96ADA5484B2; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 21:04:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 818074EBC0F; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 21:04:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 21:04:13 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, last-call@ietf.org, IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <YzsyLdJZ1Erwb0Bb@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <CFE25E25-D131-468E-9923-80350D6216F3@ietf.org> <3e0356f6-8288-2ab4-ef77-52bda4ad54cf@nostrum.com> <76f3ef5e-13d0-7b0d-2b94-8f3085e06344@lear.ch> <69cff9aa-9540-b369-06d6-5cee531852f0@nostrum.com> <ab216c77-47e6-cce0-1e40-2c455ecab601@lear.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <ab216c77-47e6-cce0-1e40-2c455ecab601@lear.ch>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/Uxli7uaCdUXNS_fkMQv_B1DuUn8>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] OT: change BCP 83 [Re: 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: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 19:04:25 -0000

On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 05:36:44PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> My issue with BCP 83 has to
> do with steps 2, 3, and 5 of the process.  2 and 3 are not necessary, and
> the community needn't make a decision about an individual.  It's a poor use
> of our time, and subjects the individual to humiliation.
>
>  We should stop that.

I support that suggestion.

The community review/comment looks also strange to me for the following points:

- There is no clear explicit list of what is in evidence, instead we are asked to find that
  evidence ourselves from long mailing lists, not knowing how far back judgements where made.

- There are references made to unreasonable behavior in private conversation, which we can not vet,
  and drafts that have been completely removed, so we can not vet those either (now).

- To me, this "discussion" looks a lot like a misguided public trial with an unclear separation between
  accusers and judges, but without any clear assigned defender.

IMHO all that makes those process steps overall more hurtfull to the reputation of the IETF than helpfull,

Toerless

> 
> Eliot
> 
> 




> -- 
> last-call mailing list
> last-call@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call


-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de