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

Pete Resnick <> Thu, 27 October 2022 15:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA65EC1524A8; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iLpM1l_2Y6-0; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:39:40 -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 6E270C14F6E5; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 08:39:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mail; t=1666885178; bh=Q3qTRhw6Hfw13ZyTESyINnvhD5gME8Hcy1hQG5U9HZU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=dL+A95+KTgqATUYyinmqKwTCH9FtTUTnz+15wrY/h+R43DzJo56SEAJctdhCWbyOt vEeW5MV23G8LyXCMHAXTFI8sMmLXS+6vZGrFAHUwaI62Sp0zazY4QjST8SJye4srFr z73d4pH62zN4z2dEdANRb6Ph67NMyYvLd3E9NEd4=
From: Pete Resnick <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,, IETF Chair <>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 10:39:36 -0500
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5923)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <E35A397E4DCDAD5D0BA33D9A@PSB>
References: <> <> <> <> <E35A397E4DCDAD5D0BA33D9A@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
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: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 15:39:45 -0000

On 27 Oct 2022, at 8:58, John C Klensin wrote:

> ... if he
> is forced off mailing lists until he demonstrates that he has
> stopped the problem behavior, he has no opportunity to make that
> demonstration, amounting to a lifetime ban.  Moreover, at least
> from my point of view, it hurts the community by depriving us of
> the widest possible diversity of perspectives on our actual
> technical work.

Revocation of posting rights does not require that we never see posts 
from this person. Yes, it does permit (but not require) any chair or 
list moderator to simply bit-bucket posts. However, it would also permit 
a chair to check the "moderation" bit for the mailing list and require 
chair approval of posts before the message went to the list, and in 
particular it would allow them to do so without giving a formal public 
warning or limiting them to 30 days or requiring consultation with their 
AD. Without the posting rights revocation, a chair simply cannot do 
that. In this particular case, given that we have someone who does 
contribute valuably to technical discussions, I would hope that chairs 
would not simply blindly block posts, but rather do the moderation until 
such time that there is a demonstration that postings can be made 
without reverting to earlier behavior. Yes, that does mean more work for 
chairs. Yes, that does mean that if the behavior returns, chairs will 
have to read rude messages and then explain why those messages were not 
allowed on the list. Yes, this does require chairs to be fair and 
judicious. But at least it allows for these things to happen without the 
constant return to the "warning, ask AD, suspend for 30" cycle.

Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best