RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Speaking for myself -- As noted in the appeal, quite a few documents relate to the revocation of posting rights. They cover different types of lists, authorized enforcers, potential behaviors, remedies, and procedures. At this point, the major issue seems to be non-WG lists. I don't think that the full set of documents needs to be replaced to clarify most of the questions. That would be quite an undertaking and the IETF needs a clear, consistent set of guidelines in the meantime. So it is possible that a glue document would do the job; it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy The major issue is whether the policy is clearly stated, widely understood and agreed to by the community and fairly administered. From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bernard Aboba' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500 Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just glue the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba -- Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- -- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive -- as banning, it is -- very important to have clear, well documented procedures -- dictating the -- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation -- of more documents -- may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the -- applicability and overlap of the existing documents is -- already somewhat -- unclear. -- -- -- From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, -- ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 -- -- Sam, -- -- One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not -- BCP upon BCP upon BCP. -- -- The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented -- on published operational procedures should not be at odds with -- our general or specific process documents, or else that seems -- to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have -- a community-defined process for that (which seems to result -- in a BCP). -- -- Again -- that's just one person's perspective. -- -- Leslie. -- -- Sam Hartman wrote: -- -- So, a clarification request: -- -- Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement -- does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John -- Klensin has -- made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are -- better handled by operational procedures made available -- for community -- comment than by BCP document. -- -- It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the -- processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all -- codified in BCP. -- -- -- I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would -- appreciate comments from its members. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Bernard Aboba wrote: it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy That would work for me! Regards, Ed Juskevicius -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Speaking for myself -- As noted in the appeal, quite a few documents relate to the revocation of posting rights. They cover different types of lists, authorized enforcers, potential behaviors, remedies, and procedures. At this point, the major issue seems to be non-WG lists. I don't think that the full set of documents needs to be replaced to clarify most of the questions. That would be quite an undertaking and the IETF needs a clear, consistent set of guidelines in the meantime. So it is possible that a glue document would do the job; it is also possible that the situation could be addressed without any documents at all, just by a clear set of guidelines and a statement of policy The major issue is whether the policy is clearly stated, widely understood and agreed to by the community and fairly administered. From: Gray, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Bernard Aboba' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:40:29 -0500 Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just glue the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On -- Behalf Of Bernard Aboba -- Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- -- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive as -- banning, it is very important to have clear, well documented -- procedures dictating the -- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation -- of more documents -- may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the -- applicability and overlap of the existing documents is -- already somewhat -- unclear. -- -- -- From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, -- ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 -- -- Sam, -- -- One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon -- BCP upon BCP. -- -- The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented -- on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our -- general or specific process documents, or else that seems to -- suggest the process documents need updating. And we have a -- community-defined process for that (which seems to result in a -- BCP). -- -- Again -- that's just one person's perspective. -- -- Leslie. -- -- Sam Hartman wrote: -- -- So, a clarification request: -- -- Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public -- requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, -- John -- Klensin has -- made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that -- are better handled by operational procedures made available -- for community -- comment than by BCP document. -- -- It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that -- the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are -- all codified in BCP. -- -- -- I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would -- appreciate comments from its members. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
So, a clarification request: Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are better handled by operational procedures made available for community comment than by BCP document. It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all codified in BCP. I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would appreciate comments from its members. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Leslie == Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Leslie The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community Leslie commented on published operational procedures should not Leslie be at odds with our general or specific process documents, Leslie or else that seems to suggest the process documents need Leslie updating. And we have a community-defined process for Leslie that (which seems to result in a BCP). O, this statement I completely agree with. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Sam, One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon BCP upon BCP. The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our general or specific process documents, or else that seems to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have a community-defined process for that (which seems to result in a BCP). Again -- that's just one person's perspective. Leslie. Sam Hartman wrote: So, a clarification request: Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are better handled by operational procedures made available for community comment than by BCP document. It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all codified in BCP. I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would appreciate comments from its members. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive as banning, it is very important to have clear, well documented procedures dictating the process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation of more documents may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the applicability and overlap of the existing documents is already somewhat unclear. From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 Sam, One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not BCP upon BCP upon BCP. The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented on published operational procedures should not be at odds with our general or specific process documents, or else that seems to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have a community-defined process for that (which seems to result in a BCP). Again -- that's just one person's perspective. Leslie. Sam Hartman wrote: So, a clarification request: Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John Klensin has made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are better handled by operational procedures made available for community comment than by BCP document. It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all codified in BCP. I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would appreciate comments from its members. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Bernard, The way I interpret your statement is that you feel that replacement of the existing set of documents - possibly with a single new document - is preferred to writing one or more new documents with the intent to just glue the current set back together. Is that a correct interpretation? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba -- Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:59 PM -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- -- My personal perspective is that on a subject as sensitive -- as banning, it is -- very important to have clear, well documented procedures -- dictating the -- process and who is allowed to initiate the ban. Creation -- of more documents -- may not be the solution to this problem, particularly since the -- applicability and overlap of the existing documents is -- already somewhat -- unclear. -- -- -- From: Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CC: IAB [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iesg (E-mail) iesg@ietf.org, -- ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin -- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:42:24 -0500 -- -- Sam, -- -- One IAB member's perspective: no, the expectation is not -- BCP upon BCP upon BCP. -- -- The devil is, of course, in the details. Even community commented -- on published operational procedures should not be at odds with -- our general or specific process documents, or else that seems -- to suggest the process documents need updating. And we have -- a community-defined process for that (which seems to result -- in a BCP). -- -- Again -- that's just one person's perspective. -- -- Leslie. -- -- Sam Hartman wrote: -- -- So, a clarification request: -- -- Am I correctly understanding that the clear and public requirement -- does not always imply a process RFC? In particular, John -- Klensin has -- made an argument that there are a wide variety of matters that are -- better handled by operational procedures made available -- for community -- comment than by BCP document. -- -- It's my reading that the IAB is interested in making sure that the -- processes and rules are clear and public, not that they are all -- codified in BCP. -- -- -- I'm not looking for a formal response from the IAB but would -- appreciate comments from its members. -- -- --Sam -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
IAB, Thank you for the processing of this request. However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the ietf-languages list. The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this; there is nothing else in the decision of the IAB that is clear to me. Until the IESG hands me a new decision, I will continue to administer the ietf-languages list as if RFC 3683 was appropriate guidance for administering it, including upholding the current suspension of posting rights for Jefsey Morfin until February 13, 2006. The alternatives would be to declare that I'm making up the rules on my own, or to declare that the list has no rules until the IESG decides; the last interpretation is not one I'm willing to run a list under. (Yes, he's gotten suspended again.) Harald Alvestrand --On 31. januar 2006 13:28 -0500 Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. IAB Conclusion on the Appeal The IAB found that the response provided by the IESG in this action did not provide sufficient justification to sustain the banning of Mr. Morfin from the ietf-languages mailing list. In particular, while the IAB agrees with the IESG that no specific mailing list process RFCs directly apply in this case, its response is not sufficiently clear why RFC 3934 is considered applicable by analogy. Further, it is also unclear from the IESG's response what the scope of applicability of RFC 3934 might be, or when other process RFCs might be applied by analogy. Therefore, the IESG's action does not meet the clear and public requirement outlined above and the IAB annuls the IESG's decision in this appeal and sends the matter back to the IESG for resolution. Since the suspension period has expired, no remedy is indicated. However, the IAB recommends that the ambiguities that gave rise to this appeal be clarified, as described in the following sections. pgp0pecSNoByW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: Thank you for the processing of this request. However, this mailing list maintainer is now completely uncertain about what his marching orders are with regards to continuing to administer the ietf-languages list. The IAB seems to have decided that it's the IESG that has to decide this; there is nothing else in the decision of the IAB that is clear to me. Until the IESG hands me a new decision, I will continue to administer the ietf-languages list as if RFC 3683 was appropriate guidance for administering it, including upholding the current suspension of posting rights for Jefsey Morfin until February 13, 2006. The alternatives would be to declare that I'm making up the rules on my own, or to declare that the list has no rules until the IESG decides; the last interpretation is not one I'm willing to run a list under. (Yes, he's gotten suspended again.) It sounds a lot like you're trying to rationalize a personal preference. Your instructions are apparently unclear, so you just do what you want. It takes you several paragraphs to say it, but that's what it amounts to. I like the use of the passive: He's gotten suspended again, as if a stray lightning bolt did this and no human being had any role in it. Apparently you must uphold the suspension actively, but the suspension itself takes place through some sort of external magical influence. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IAB Response to Appeal from Jefsey Morfin
I thank the IAB for the processing of my request. I acknowledge its decision. The IAB has decided not to discuss the motives of the contention, but the use of RFC 3934 to legitimate a ban decision (also used in the three other cases). Harald Alvestrand indicated the reasons of this use: if the list didn't behave as if it was subject to RFC 3934, the IETF would be justified in asking someone else to take on the job of running the list. This is consistent with the consequences he draws from the IAB decision: the alternatives would be to declare that I'm making up the [list] rules on my own, or to declare that the list has no rules until the IESG decides; the last interpretation is not one I'm willing to run a list under. This means that the IAB, Harald Alvestrand and I root the issue [which make us waste so much time for one year] in the unclear status, basically, for *me* (says Michael Everson, ietf@ietf.org at 15:57 20/01/2006), of the RFC 3066 IANA [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. I hope this list will soon be a IANA managed mailing list, or that the IESG requires the WG-ltru to gives it a more precise status through RFC 3066 bis (a debate I proposed and I was denied). I make a note of the IESG and of the IAB no comment concerning my propositions in the Multilingual Internet, users requirements and ethic areas. I now feel free to proceed along these propositions in the respect of the Internet standard process. I received several well done mails. I consider that Harald and I are both only trying to do our best to clarify a complex issue to the benefit of the users and of the IETF. I genuinely hope the IAB decision will help us to openly discuss it, taking the necessary time. jfc At 19:28 31/01/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote: On 4 January 2006, the IAB received an appeal from Jefsey Morfin appealing the IESG decision to uphold the suspension of his posting rights to the ietf-languages list. According to the procedures in Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026, the IAB has reviewed the situation and issues the following response. 1. The Appeal Question The IAB interpreted this appeal to be as follows: The appeal concerns whether the IESG, in upholding the suspension of Mr. Morfin's posting privileges to the ietf-languages mailing list, made an incorrect decision. 2. The Scope and Basis of the Appeal While Mr. Morfin noted several motivations for his appeal and requests that several questions be answered in response to his appeal, the IAB did not consider Mr. Morfin's discussion of internationalization issues. Rather, the IAB reviewed the appeal as it applies to the administration of IETF mailing lists and specifically to the removal of posting rights. In particular, the conclusions described here narrowly apply to the process used by the IESG in upholding the 20 Nov 2005 suspension of Mr. Morfin's posting rights on the ietf-languages mailing list. Finally, in considering the appeal, we observe that the IESG noted that no existing explicit mailing list policy RFC was applicable in this case. 3. The Process used by the IAB to Review the Situation The question raised by the appeal is whether the IESG followed the Internet Standards Process in the upholding of the suspension of Mr. Morfin's posting rights to the ietf-languages mailing list. The procedure used by the IAB in considering this appeal has included: o Review of the documentation of the IETF's standards procedures as described in RFC 2026 and RFC 2418, o Review of IETF Mailing List Administrative Procedures, as documented in RFCs 2418, 3005, 3683, and 3934, and o Review of the context and history of this appeal 4. IAB Considerations In its response to Mr. Morfin's initial appeal, the IESG notes: RFC 3934 does not strictly speaking, apply to non-WG lists but we have considered it by analogy. The IAB found that RFC 3934 is specific to working group mailing lists: Not only is RFC 3934 specifically identified as an update to RFC 2418 (which regards working group procedures), but the clearly stated purpose of RFC 3934 is to give working group chairs similar authority on a mailing list as they have in face-to-face meetings. In particular, a working group chair can refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the chair, is disrupting the WG process during a meeting. It is precisely because of their designation as working group chair that RFC 3934 provides the chair the ability to suspend posting rights without IESG approval. This calls into question the suspension of mailing list posting rights under RFC 3934 other than by working group chairs on working group mailing lists. The IAB also reviewed other IETF mailing list management RFCs. RFC 3683 refers to the temporary suspension of posting rights to a specific mailing list. However, we were hard-pressed to find language in RFC 3683 that could have been applied in either the
