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

[Dan Harkins <[e-mail]>]

   I didn't call you stupid! I said you misunderstood a point being
made (and I explained your misunderstanding) and because of that,
you were not the guy to write a draft to cancel the ietf list.

   Histrionics are not helpful right here and right now.

   Dan.

On 10/4/22 10:19 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Well, in this message, from the PR action, he just calls me stupid.
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/68a4amMa1aiaRUPzPGgXdiY9gHg/
>
> I’m not stupid.
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 22:06 Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     I have, for the last several days, been trying to compose a
>     response, and haven’t gotten it right yet. But Christian expressed
>     it perfectly. That is, I would support the PR-action, but I have
>     reservations. It is not clear to me that the growing consensus
>     separates "unpopular opinions" from the "abusive messaging patterns”.
>
>     Don’t get me wrong; I think there is enough to support the
>     PR-Action based strictly on the latter. But Lar’s message could be
>     interpreted to also be concerned with the former. I would like the
>     IESG to clarify the distinction and draw some bright lines.
>
>     Ben.
>
>     > On Oct 4, 2022, at 11:19 PM, Christian Huitema
>     <[e-mail]> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On 9/29/2022 9:15 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
>     >> Following community feedback after various incidents, as
>     documented below, the
>     >> IESG has initiated a posting rights (PR) action that would
>     restrict the posting
>     >> rights of Dan Harkins, as per the procedures found in BCP 83
>     (RFC 3683).
>     >> Specifically, his posting privileges to these lists would be
>     suspended:
>     >>
>     >> * admin-discuss
>     >> * gendispatch
>     >> * ietf
>     >> * terminology
>     >>
>     >> In the IESG's opinion, this individual has a history of sending
>     emails that are
>     >> inconsistent with the IETF Guidelines for Conduct (RFC 7154)
>     and thereby
>     >> "disrupt the consensus-driven process" (RFC 3683). Among these
>     are contributions
>     >> that:
>     >>
>     >> * Express racism in the form of denying, belittling, and
>     ridiculing anti-racist
>     >>   sentiment and efforts
>     >>
>     >> * Are rude and abusive, and often amount to insulting ridicule
>     >
>     > I understand that that the IESG want the "rude and abusive"
>     behavior to stop. I am however concerned that the action as
>     written doesn't distinguish clearly between censoring unpopular
>     positions and censoring abusive messaging patterns.
>     >
>     > I looked at Dan's posts listed in the last call, and I find a
>     mix of reasonable arguments followed by attacks, with quite a bit
>     of trolling. Take for example
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/i-d7HlWgrkmrVlC7JZQSXDwIJCQ/.
>     It argues that a word like "master key" is an established term of
>     the art whose origin is not tainted by racism, and that the IETF
>     (or the IEEE) should not attempt a systematic replacement. Whether
>     one agrees or not, that's a reasonable argument during a
>     discussion of terminology. But then, the message goes on with a
>     rant about the political priorities and personal ethics of the
>     proponents of such replacements, and the IETF can do without these
>     kind of attacks. It can also certainly do with the kind of
>     trolling found in
>     https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/-On8AHrdnnCMlJOOyb1M1nlYMpk/,
>     in which Dan pretends to be offended by the use of the word
>     "native" in some computer languages.
>     >
>     > The IESG should clarify that unpopular opinions, per se, are OK.
>     We need many voices in any debate. Indeed, in the terminology
>     debate, the IETF eventually adopted the NIST guideline. This was
>     significantly different from the original proposal, but probably
>     closer to IETF consensus.
>     >
>     > I am concerned that the sentence about "expressing racism by
>     denying anti-racist sentiment" can be misinterpreted, or misused.
>     Clearly, attacking or belittling people because of their race,
>     religion, sexual practices or culture has no place in the IETF.
>     Personal attacks against proponents of specific anti-racist
>     actions is also wrong. But some proposals motivated by anti-racism
>     may well be misguided. Like any other proposals, they should be
>     debated based on their merits.
>     >
>     > I would like the IESG to rewrite its message and clearly
>     indicate that they are censoring personal attacks, ridiculing and
>     trolling, but not censoring the debate itself.
>     >
>     > -- Christian Huitema
>     >
>     > --
>     > last-call mailing list
>     > [e-mail]
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>
>     -- 
>     last-call mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>
>

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius