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

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

Rob

I believe I summarized the reasoning with multiple examples, past and recent at:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0dRmWOrIlTZtsIcR4kNPvPYmvpI/

Harkins is an outlier; he is not just an example of Corinne Cath-Speth's 'loud men talking loudly' in her 'IETF Culture Wars' piece i.e. taking confidently and passionately about the positions they understand and believe -- but Harkins is an out-and-out bully conducting ad-hominem attacks. His bullying behaviour goes back years, with years of attendant complaints to the IESG.

(His racist drafts were submitted anonymously, so wouldn't have done it by themselves. But Harkins eventually admitted on the IETF list to writing them. Didn't even have the courage to stand by what he wrote.)

I'm pleased Harkins has been dealt with, and saddened that it has had to take so long, with so many examples. Though it's better to err on the side of tolerance and caution, there's caution and there's prolonged inaction through multiple IESG terms.

Lloyd Wood
[e-mail]


oh, I could deal with Harkins. But the point is, no-one should have to deal with Harkins.






On Saturday, 1 October 2022 at 12:54:57 GMT+10, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote: 





I don’t agree with the timeliness argument here. It sounds the racist Internet drafts should have done it, but the calls for oppression (that’s what it is, even if you think it is called for) contain no reasoning. What’s the reasoning?

thanks,
Rob

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 19:30 Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022, at 13:46, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I support this action, and (like others) would like to know why it took so long.
> 
> I also support this action, but would reframe the ask for the IESG: What could be done differently that might allow actions to be more timely?