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

Jay Daley <> Sat, 08 October 2022 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83178C14CF19 for <>; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.609
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QWkq_pFkedUq for <>; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFFBDC14CF0F for <>; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E33412787D; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WPMETWsqK3p6; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E711E4127877; Sat, 8 Oct 2022 10:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3954BC64-695E-4F79-8081-68845817291B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.\))
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 18:04:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <37E7F087CEA406E75CBD4AAC@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <DD29063A41A7DEA374F8E9E4@PSB> <> <> <37E7F087CEA406E75CBD4AAC@PSB>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.
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: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 17:04:32 -0000


I’m loathe to continue on this point, but as it so important to you:

> On 7 Oct 2022, at 21:28, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> --On Friday, October 7, 2022 15:32 -0400 Theodore Ts'o
> < <>> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Jay Daley wrote:
>>>> Would you care to restate it in terms of his actions and
>>>> behavior rather than his intentions?
>>> My statement above is indeed a statement of actions and
>>> behaviour. It is an objective fact that his post had no
>>> content that was not ridicule.  My statement is therefore, to
>>> use a phrase from your postscript, based solely on observable
>>> behaviour and nothing else.
>>> You or others might wish to speculate on a motive not
>>> inherent in the text that somehow alters the seriousness of
>>> that post, but I don't think that would be appropriate for
>>> me to do when making moderation decisions.
>> I have to agree with Jay here.  If someone introduces race
>> into a discussion about masking, that should be raising all
>> sorts of red flags.  Whether it is because that person doesn't
>> have the awareness about why that might not be a good thing to
>> do, or was doing it with malice aforethought, IMHO, doesn't
>> matter.  It has the potential of being highly divisive, and
>> trolling, and again, if someone can't figure that out, then
>> maybe their ability to post should be restricted for a time,
>> until they can figure that out.
> Then I think you missed the point I was trying to make and
> probably Jay did too.  

I very much understood the point you are trying to make.  See below.

> I certainly agree about the red flags and
> the rest of the above, including the "doesn't matter" point.
> And...
> --On Friday, October 7, 2022 15:37 -0400 Joel Halpern
> < <>> wrote:
>> And, as occurred in this case, they should be talked to about
>> whether they understand the problem and are willing to change
>> their behavior.  If not, and if they demonstrate they are
>> unwilling to modify their behavior, then we as a community are
>> obliged to take explicit steps to prevent the bad behavior.
> Yes.  Agree with that too.
> But Jay's original comment was not, e.g., either of
> 	"He introduced race into a discussion that previously
> 	had nothing to do with it and..."
> or
> 	"Regardless of his motivations, the comment could not
> 	serve as a genuine contribution to any serious debate
> 	and could only be interpreted by reasonable readers as
> 	belittling and ridiculing the discussion"  
> those statements would be about behavior and impact on the
> community.  The original,
>> Dan however did not introduce it for any serious debate or
>> other genuine contribution, he did so solely for the purpose
>> of belittling and ridiculing it. 
> was about Dan's intent and goals.

You are assuming that the word "purpose" can only mean "intended purpose" but that is not the only meaning available. As I tried to explain previously, I meant "demonstrated purpose", i.e. an after-the-fact statement that is nothing to do with intent.  Or to put it another way, if you look at that post and ask "What purpose did the introduction of this third party view serve?" then there is only one conclusion.  No mind-reading of any kind involved. 


> And, Richard, I don't consider that distinction a philosophical
> discussion.   The examples above and the statement that Ted made
> are about specific behavior with impact of the community (and
> hence justification for a PR-action.  It is possible for those
> statements to be incorrect although I don't, personally, think
> they are.  A statement about Dan's intent or motivation requires
> a certain amount of mind reading (even if the mind reader
> believes the conclusions are obvious) and, as I believe others
> have pointed out, is not very much different from a personal
> attack.   
>   john

Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director