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

[Tom Beecher <[e-mail]>]

>
> and that many of Dan's
> supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
> personal attacks on himself or on the community.
>

This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are saying
that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal "attack",
they should be afforded complete license to respond in any manner they so
choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier version of "Well he
started it."

Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:23 PM Keith Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 10/4/22 09:16, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
>
> > There have been repeated hints from various sides that the postings in
> > question (may) have been hurting the feelings of IETF participants (or
> > have been disturbing at least and clearly lacking respect for IETF
> > participants).
>
> With respect, I disagree that this is a valid reason for censoring this
> individual.  I also disagree that his postings were malicious or clearly
> lacking respect for IETF participants. What's also clear is that this
> effort is a personal attack on Dan, and that many of Dan's
> supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
> personal attacks on himself or on the community.   While everyone would
> do well to avoid resorting to ridicule out of anger at being attacked,
> that's an important part of the context that many people seem to be
> missing.
>
> Essentially, your argument amounts to an argument that it's okay for the
> IETF leadership to attack individuals whose opinions they do not like,
> or that it's okay for IETF leadership to amplify individuals whose
> opinions are offensive to some, and for defensible reasons.
>
> Keith
>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>