On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joe Provo wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote: > [snip] > > i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which > > are both against the AUP > <snip the tangent> > > The only seeming AUP transgression (a public industry figure's felony > status isn't character assassination by any stretch) is that it is > off-topic and content-free. Had the felony comment been part of a larger > message with relevant content and then generated the same response, I > would say the response was completely out of line. As it stands, seems > like a 'normal' off-topic message that should have elicited a 'normal' > personal warning. Why the SC was copied is a mystery to me unless the > MLC think the SC is so out of touch that they do not pay attention to > the mailing list. Regarding any individual SC member's behavior; isn't > that why there are elections? The above pretty much sum my feelings on this issue as well.
a) cc to steering@ was unnecessary (while I understand Marty's feelings about it, it still was unnecessary, and could have been perceived (and apparently was perceived) as attempt to public embarassment, while I'm sure none was intended by Marty. b) The roots of this issue are in lack of MLC' publically accessible procedures. We've had approved the "MLC enforcement policy", but it is not posted anywhere other than -futures archives. We also still lack clear indication whether an email from MLC member is intended to be a formal warning or not. For reference, the latest approved policy is available here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/msg01828.html I apologise for dropping the ball on publishing the enforcement policy. *) Marty did not intend this to be a formal warning, but it was unclear whether it was or it wasn't - and Randy treated it as a warning. Marty has clarified that it wasn't intented to be a warning. We'll update the enforcement policy to make it clear which messages are formal warnings and which messages are polite requests to change the behaviour. *) Marty did not follow the protocol that says "warnings MUST be sent to a subscriber". *) Note that according to this policy, (if it was actually a warning), warnings are not appealable to SC directly, just to MLC. Bans are appealable to SC. At this point, since Marty stated that it wasn't intented to be a warning, I think it makes the matter of the 'appeal' moot. Can we now return to regularly scheduled programming? > If this off-topic post is getting a response, I presume others are as > well. Since the SC hasn't (and shouldn't be) copied on any private > warnings, I look forward to meaningful statistics in ABQ. I will provide this information as a part of MLC report at the community meeting. -alex
