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

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 3:49 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> To be clear, they're not unrelated concepts; they're just not the same
> thing: unpopular opinions can become disruptive behavior when consensus
> is declared, those opinions are properly determined to be "in the
> rough," and their proponents insist on re-litigating those issues
> anyway.


Correct. I just experienced a fairly contentious discussion along those
lines.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/D32Y4ASUD6HQhLF4mzmTQVstnMU/

I got most of what I had been arguing for, but also declared myself "in the
rough" in the end.



> That kind of behavior blocks progress. (Did the person who
> called consensus get it wrong? That's always possible, and that's why we
> have an appeals process. I want to be clear that appeals are not the
> same thing as repeatedly attempting to re-litigate closed issues in the
> same forum.)
>

This part doesn't matter. If the idea is really bad, it will just fail. Sit
back and watch.



> But in many ways, none of that is really applicable here.

...

> . It's about whether we tolerate that kind of unfettered
> jackassery on our mailing lists, regardless of the opinions they express.
>

Yep. The objection is not really about expression, but about time wasted.
It's about entitlement, and the insistence that people listen to you.

thanks,
Rob