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

John C Klensin <> Sun, 02 October 2022 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DCAC14CF19; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 09:59:16 -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 0gy0nPCMUX3w; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C429AC14CF04; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 09:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=JcK-HP5) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1of2Ix-0004xD-Ra; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 12:59:03 -0400
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 12:59:03 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Lloyd W <>, Rob Sayre <>
Message-ID: <03ECE46E909EDAA67FC4F2EC@JcK-HP5>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
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-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] 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: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:59:16 -0000

--On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 14:31 +1100 Lloyd W
<> wrote:

>> On 2 Oct 2022, at 00:57, Rob Sayre <> wrote:
>> Fully agree. I have a list of people I mute, and that works
>> for me.
> Maybe the IESG, IAB, wg chairs and other responsible people
> should compare notes on who they're each muting and filtering
> - and why.

Lloyd, I suggest that, if that group of people, but especially
the IESG, start muting those whose messages they don't like
--for any reason-- we go rapidly down the slippery slope toward
having no opinions count that don't agree with the preferences
of those in "the leadership". There may well be extreme cases,
but that is what all of the other mechanisms that have been
discussed, ultimately leading up to BCP 83, are about.
Otherwise and independent of the wishes of the allegedly
problematic author, the rest of us need to have the right to
presume that the IESG (in particular) is hearing the voices of
everyone in the community who might be expressing an opinion
about a matter relevant to the IETF.  

If that sounds like I think a certain amount of abuse-tolerance
goes with those roles when people volunteer for them _and_ that
Nomcoms should consider observed low tolerance for criticism as
disqualifying for AD (and some other) roles), well, yes.

What decisions you, Rob, or myself might make about who or what
to filter; messages we do or do not care to read carefully and
in their entirity; etc., is another matter entirely: none of us
have the responsibility to evaluate community consensus and do
that fairly.

And, again, if their perception is that the abuse and/or
disruption level has gotten high enough that neither they nor
anyone else should need to put up with more of it, that is what
BCP 83 is about.