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

John C Klensin <> Fri, 28 October 2022 03:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09866C152582; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 n8hZxM5TZySA; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AACA5C14CE32; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1ooFyu-000KqZ-Qj; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:24:28 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:24:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
cc: Ted Lemon <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,, IETF Chair <>
Message-ID: <5EE93148C706EEA966757077@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <E35A397E4DCDAD5D0BA33D9A@PSB> <> <40901823039A72E927E6387C@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Change of position: 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: Fri, 28 Oct 2022 03:24:36 -0000

--On Thursday, October 27, 2022 16:50 -0500 Pete Resnick
<> wrote:

> On 27 Oct 2022, at 15:47, John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Thursday, October 27, 2022 10:39 -0500 Pete Resnick
>> <> wrote:
>>> Revocation of posting rights does not require that we never
>>> see posts from this person.
>> Completely agreed for all mailing lists other than those
>> called out in the PR-action Last Call notice.    If what you
>> are saying is "let's force him off the enumerated set of
>> mailing lists and then see what happens with other lists to
>> which he might contribute", I can see some sense in that...
>> Except that at least one of those lists --the
>> one-- is something we at least used to tell people was
>> important for full participation in the IETF.

> Then perhaps the "balance" you are looking for is, "Suspend
> posting rights on the enumerated lists only to the extent that
> his posts are explicitly moderated instead of simply being
> discarded, and encourage chairs of other lists to limit their
> actions to the same." I see nothing in BCP 83 that forbids
> this outcome. If the behavior seems to have improved over
> (insert time of your liking), post another PR-Action
> withdrawing the suspension.

Without going back and studying BCP 83 again, I could happily
accept that version of the outcome.  I think it differs from
what I was suggesting mostly in the terminology we use to
describe it.   I do have two concerns from what I remember of
BCP 83 and some of the recent discussion.   One is that BCP 83
does, IIR rather clearly, say that a PR-action cannot be
reviewed in less than a year.   So, if the "time of someone's
liking", were significantly shorter than that, I'm not sure the
above is possible.   The other is that, if we are trying to
avoid being punitive, giving Dan the "award" of being one of the
very few PR-actions we have used does sound a bit like

In the light of some of the disagreements we've seen over the
last month, I would also be a bit concerned about adding to the
burdens on the moderators to try to make decisions in this case
consistent with community consensus (rough or otherwise).  The
arrangement I think you are proposing might also set Dan up for
a fall if the moderators decided to reject something he
submitted for posting and he thought, after consideration, that
the posting was appropriate and the decision inappropriate.  The
model I proposed would carry much the same risk, but would
encourage immediate IESG review and, if needed, decisive action.

But, again, your suggestion and mine don't seem very different
in practice, especially if there are no further inappropriate