[Mod-discuss] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-modpod-group-processes-10 (Ends 2025-09-08)

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

> > > Do you object only to moderation team members being
> > > enabled to take such actions, or also object to
> > > administrators (e.g. WG chairs) being so enabled?
> > I've already given various examples of WG chairs abusing their current
> > powers to silence dissent (locking threads; threatening list bans if
> > particular objections are mentioned again) while not even pretending to
> > meet the RFC 3934 rules.
> That doesn't actually answer the question, and nor had you
> earlier that I saw. (You complained about specific chair
> actions and hadn't said anything general if I read it right.)

Hmmm. I guess the distinction you're drawing is that I could be blaming
the abuses of power on the individuals involved in those incidents (I
mentioned various WG chairs and the IAB) while still endorsing the power
being given to them in the first place?

If so: No. The core problem is tech companies colluding to control the
market: for example, making protocols unnecessarily complicated to
increase the barrier to entry for new competitors. The companies come to
IETF to put a veneer of standardization on this collusion. Dissent
threatens this, so they're happy when censorship powers make dissent
easier to stifle. This violates the legal requirement of openness, as I
mentioned before, but violating the law is simply another business
calculation for these companies. The abuses aren't a surprise; the
system is set up to allow the abuses, and the system has to be fixed.
Unfortunately, the current MODPOD draft makes abuses even easier.

I'm aware of the ostrich narrative that, no, what's going on here isn't
driven by the massive money flows; it isn't protecting and amplifying
power; the goal is merely to maintain decorum. Perhaps someone who
believes this narrative would like to explain why an IESG member has
been again and again interrupting technical discussions by issuing the
following ad-hominem attacks (and more), why none of the list managers
have announced that this is unacceptable, and why my complaints about
this through proper channels haven't produced any corrective action:

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/9e1QheO1L6SVBX3a8mFSij9AgHw/
      ("previous negative experiences with your method of discussion");

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/pPAoER3NkUfKnQlSz8BtGMr6xMU/
      ("this discussion itself has been extremely aggressive and
      unpleasant and not inductive of cooperation");

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/MtRs4sLZnzKAXRi9KuFYXNQPzk8/
      ("The cryptographer constantly repeating their mistaken
      interpretation doesn't make it true"; "willful misrepresentation");

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/voBrfB4O5RKH2tt011KKbLt-jNE/
      ("willfully misinterpreting"; "a lot of people refuse to engage
      with you at all publicly"; "Again, willfully misrepresenting");

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/mlwl5FKqg4Ebu-J3a1qkAtqxVTM/
      ("inflammatory behaviour" etc.---this message was couched as an RFC
      3934 warning, but violated RFC 3934's requirement of prior private
      notification, and tried to justify this by falsely claiming that I
      had consented to this violation);

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/WmoBT2_GIjaAcjmqP07CfZ4Tbuk/
      ("drowned out by your repetitive opinion"---similar RFC 3934
      violation);

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/5FrMFS9ioJtkW2BlTs89lwrUpfs/
      ("you have only been engaged in SSH as it relates to cryptographic
      algorithms for which you have a vested interest");

    * https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/RK1HQB7Y-WFBxQaAveeT7pHZbbc/
      ("your own made up condition" ... "you cherry-picking ... is
      dishonestly manipulative").

Who thinks these quotes qualify as decorum? Who thinks these qualify as
impersonal discussions? Who thinks these examples aren't valid unless
and until an appeal has produced an IESG declaration that these examples
are valid?

---D. J. Bernstein