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

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 10/3/22 16:00, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> On 04-Oct-22 08:04, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> ...
>> - 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.
>
> Huh? The Last Call messages includes an explicit list of example 
> messages, which in my opinion are sufficient on their own.
In my opinion, the list is nowhere nearly sufficient to support the 
charges they are making.   The general refusal to specifically say what 
was wrong or what rule it violated are one of the huge problems with 
this PR IMO.
>
>>    and drafts that have been completely removed, so we can not vet 
>> those either (now).
>
> Consider yourself fortunate. Those of us who read them at the time 
> were mainly glad to see them removed.

I objected to their removal.  I said at the time and still consider it 
an inappropriate action on the part of IESG, one that increased the 
toxicity of IETF.   I will concede that the Swift references (and also 
Orwell, if I recall correctly) were probably lost on those who weren't 
schooled in English-language literature.

>> - 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.
>
> If you think the BCP83 process has that defect, see the above Subject 
> header. As far as I can tell, the IESG has followed the current 
> process correctly.
As far as can tell, they have indeed followed BCP83 correctly. That 
they've followed the process doesn't mean it was a responsible or 
prudent choice.   I'm increasingly convinced from this that BCP83 needs 
a drastic rewrite.

I doubt that BCP83 envisioned the extremely intolerant environment that 
IETF is today.  IETF was, as best I recall, much more tolerant in those 
days, and I expect that BCP83 was intended for far more abusive posts 
than anything we've seen from Dan.
>
>> IMHO all that makes those process steps overall more hurtfull to the 
>> reputation of the IETF than helpfull,
>
> I don't agree. I think it's better to have the debate on the record 
> than behind closed doors.

Transparency is essential, and I think a closed door proceeding would do 
even more harm.

Keith