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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-10-21 09:27, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I hope this doesn't resurrect the thread but figured it'd be
> almost cowardly if I didn't express an opinion,

Same here!

> Dan being a
> person whose company I've enjoyed at numerous IETFs,

I have never met Dan, or if I ever did, I wasn't aware of it.

> with the
> same being true for a number of people who've supported the
> proposed PR-action.

Same here, although the set of people is probably different.

I very much agree with the rest of Stephen's mail. Some others (e.g. 
Bron) are also very close to my opinion.

Regards,   Martin.

> I think the IESG could just about justify a PR-action against
> Dan on the basis that he's been repeatedly if sporadically
> inflammatory (that last is called out in BCP 83). If a PR-
> action is enforced on that basis, I hope it is of a temporary
> nature, and is not leveraged by other WG list admins, as I
> don't recall Dan taking the same approach to technical topics
> where he's been a constructive contributor over many years.
> I'd also ask to the IESG to consider that this thread itself
> has been quite a "punishment." OTOH, Dan has continued his
> relatively inflammatory style in responding to some posts in
> this thread so I could understand if the IESG weighed that in
> their deliberations.
> 
> I don't personally find Dan's postings as referenced justify
> an accusation of racism, and as that'd be a pretty major
> finding which the IESG collectively maybe aren't well
> placed to judge, I really hope that aspect is not reflected
> in whatever statement the IESG post if they do impose a PR-
> action. (I do accept that people can validly differ in how
> they judge what is or is not problematic in that space so
> I'm not arguing those who see that problem are wrong, I'm
> just saying I look at those messages differently.) If the
> IESG conclude that they're not well-placed to judge such
> questions then it may be a good plan to try make that clear,
> when summarising this thread or otherwise.
> 
> Lastly, I do think this thread and the situation argue that
> BCP 83 ought be revised, but I'd recommend that not be
> attempted for a year or more. It's a rarely used instrument
> and probably better revisited after some time has passed.
> 
> Regretfully,
> Stephen.
>