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

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

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
>