[Mod-discuss] Re: Objection to MODPOD draft

[Michael De Roover <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, 7 October 2025 02:37:57 Central European Summer Time Keith Moore 
wrote:
> For avoidance of doubt,
> 
> (a) I had nothing to do with the repeated messages, no nothing about
> their origins, and don't have any reason to assume they were originated
> by anyone in particular.   I also have no reason to assume that the
> messages were not false flag efforts.
> 
> (b) I don't think they're the least bit helpful, except perhaps to
> someone trying to distract from discussion of these important issues.  
> We don't vote anyway, so multiple identical messages don't carry more
> weight than a single message.
> 
> (c) I haven't communicated at all with DJB about this WG or its current
> draft.   We have been, at least so far, acting independently.
> 
> Keith

Hi Keith, modpod,

Last night, we had a long conversation in private, that I consider to have 
been productive. I believe I owe you an apology for lashing out, without first 
gathering more information. Now that more information has surfaced (both on- 
and off-list), I wish to vouch for this and retract some of my previous 
statements.

Regarding the second point you make, and in context of the post that these 
objections were sourced from: how do we tally these, if at all? This is a 
question directed at modpod more broadly. I do have reason to believe that 
these are real people, subscribers of some sort of cr.yp.to. That they are not 
simply manifestations of the site's author using a different domain. The IP 
addresses for these domains are each in environments so different that I don't 
expect them to be one individual.

Granted, the wording itself can be argued to be simply the product of one 
disgruntled (and arguably malevolent) individual. Additionally, I do not --  
with the information I currently have available -- have reason to believe that 
the copies of this objection are originated from people familiar with IETF 
processes. The post explicitly instructs to make a new subscription first. In 
the author's own spirit, I will link using the Archive [1].

Given that, do we tally these "votes" as one, three, none? Why would that be, 
and can we declare consensus regardless?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20251006161329/https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251005-modpod.html

-- 
[Met vriendelijke groet] [Best regards]
[Michael De Roover]
---      ---      ---      ---      
[Mail] [*@nixmagic.com] [michael@[e-mail]]
[Web] [https://michael.de.roover.eu.org]
[Forge] [https://git.nixmagic.com]
[Weather] [Antwerpen] [17:00] [16.4°C]
---      ---      ---      ---      
[0] [2025-10-07 17:39 CEST]
[~] [[e-mail]]
[$] [/usr/bin/sign-mail] [>_] 
---      ---      ---      ---