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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, October 3, 2022 17:46 -0400 Keith Moore
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 10/3/22 17:41, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
>> You are meandering from the point I was making. The documents
>> could not remain published.
>> 
>> While you say "acknowledge the problem, " you finish that
>> sentence with basically not acknowledging to problem and
>> fully ignoring it for your own wish list.
> 
> My view of the problem you cited is that AI is being
> misused.  I still don't think that Dan's drafts were worthy
> of removal.  I do think, however, that perhaps we should
> require permission from the mentioned individual before
> publishing a draft that mentions any living person in any way.

Keith and Paul,

Can we try to separate what I (at least) see as different
problems.  As you might know, I've written acknowledgments that
say that John Doe made contributions to the specification,
including writing most of Sections X and Y, that were very
important even if he did not agree with the ultimate result.  I
think that sort of tracking is important for the community and
it is not at all clear to me that a request from Mr. Doe to
remove his name entirely should be honored.  It is not, of
course, the sort of acknowledgement that Paul received. 

We have also have situations where people have been listed as
co-authors on a document, implying endorsement of the content of
a document, without their permission.    Clearly both that type
of action  and the sort of "acknowledgement" Paul received are
problematic.  Do they imply that we need better and clearer
mechanisms for taking documents down because they implied people
were endorsing the content who were not or that names were
mentioned in order to say or imply negative things about those
people, especially if the targets request that?   Yes,
definitely.  But those are not, IMO, BCP 83 issues unless the
pen-holding author is accused of regular patterns of bad and
disruptive behavior of that variety.  

I don't know, but I don't think those documents were taken down
because they acknowledge Paul in an inappropriate way.  They
were, as I understand it, taken down because of more extensive
content that seriously violated community norms.  

But, AFAICT, none of that has anything to do with BCP 83 because
it, again, AFAICT, is strictly about mailing lists.  If we are
going to make changes, that is something else that should be
looked at carefully, but, as of now...

best,   
   john