Randy Presuhn writes: > At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the > effort required to get anything done.
How hard can it be to delete messages? > Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a > difficult bind when only ones expressing those viewpoints are > individuals who also choose to behave badly. You can just ignore people who behave badly. Why must they be silenced for everyone just because you don't want to hear them? > Invoking RFC 3934 at the WG level is not something that any WG chair > would undertake lightly. I don't even understand why this is an RFC. What does it have to do with the technical functioning of the Internet? What next? An RFC establishing an official religion? > I'm sure the IESG is fully aware of the gravity of invoking RFC 3683. I doubt that. If it were that aware, no such RFC would exist in the first place. > However, the reason the procedures exist at all is out of the > recognition that a very few people are so abusive of our processes > and culture that we need to be able to cut them off so that we can > get real work done. Translation: Everyone reaches a point where he prefers to censor others rather than tolerate them. > If their technical arguments have real merit, they will reach us by other > avenues. If other avenues work, you don't need mailing lists, do you? > It would be so much simpler if everyone could be counted on to > recognize (easy) and ignore (hard) the bad actors. If people don't want to ignore them, why is it your duty to do their thinking for them? _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
