This is a discussion of administrative IETF business. Further, this is a serious
IETF matter. It properly belongs on the IETF main list.
You are free to create whatever personal lists you like, however, your list does
not represent IETF business, nor is it required to comply with any IETF standard
I (and I suspect others) view the current free-speech-at-any-cost idea as
just one more sign of the decay of the IETF as a body which actually does
useful stuff.
Noel,
It is decay only if it achieves rough consensus.
Absent that, it merely counts as the usual venting of idealism and naiv
There was an error in this. The second sentence should be:
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to consider issuing an IETF Last Call and,
if one is issued, listen to the responses.
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
I
Thomas Gal writes:
> Need implies accepting someone elses constraints. That's a poor
> simplification, because 100 people could tell someone that they
> "need" to stop posting friviously and harming list progress, and
> they can still chose to ignore it if there are no teeth to the
> rules.
A dis
I'm sorry I didn't read these calm well thought out comments before I
responded to some of the other posts.
-Tom
>
> Hold on.
>
> To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic
> to: we don't like RFC 3683.
>
> Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF last
> c
> > For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to
> exercise
> > his freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the
> > morning (without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other
> > wishes to exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as
> to be well
>
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>
> Melinda
>
Yes. We have an RFC with a procedure. "I don't like the procedure, and will
oppose it regard
Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
>
> If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
> we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
> to the responses.
>
> But as of now, we have not received such a request in
> the case of JFC Morfin.
>
> In ter
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic to: we
> > don't like RFC 3683.
>
> I must admit a certain amount of bemusement at the current debate, since the
> IETF list has,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 10:23 AM
> To: Marshall Eubanks
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: I have filed the petition (Re: Anyone not in favor
>
As I said in my message of 15 hours ago, I have filed the petition, and
will speak no more of the matter before the Last Call.
Just in case anyone else didn't notice.
--On fredag, oktober 07, 2005 09:00:57 -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would suggest that, as Harald pos
understood, but i was just responding to the subject line
--bill
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:40:52AM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
>
> If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
> we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
On 10/7/05 12:42 AM, "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial
> of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what
> he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him. Censorship
> is disguised
Now I, for one, find this annoying. Order 100+ messages to the list, a host of
people declaring
themselves for or against, two petition drives on-line, and all for an
"informal" request for a
PR-Action ? That would all presumably have to be repeated under a Last Call ?
Which will occur at
some
> From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the topic to: we
> don't like RFC 3683.
I must admit a certain amount of bemusement at the current debate, since the
IETF list has, historically (although not in the last couple of year
Hold on.
To put it bluntly, you and some others have changed the
topic to: we don't like RFC 3683.
Now, that RFC is a BCP that was duly approved after IETF
last call etc. But the code has never been tested until
the IESG recently received a request to take a PR action
against somebody - and we a
Folks, let's be clear about procedure here.
If the IESG receives a formal request under RFC 3683,
we are obliged to make an IETF Last Call and listen
to the responses.
But as of now, we have not received such a request in
the case of JFC Morfin.
In terms of RFC 3683, nothing has happened yet in
Me
Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)
--
Internal Virus Database
Nelson, David writes:
> For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to exercise his
> freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
> (without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other wishes to
> exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be we
Nor am I.
Avri Doria writes:
> well said. neither am i.
> a.
> On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:
>>
>> i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
>>
>> --bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/ma
:59 PM
--> To: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against
--> Jefsey Morfin
-->
-->
--> For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
--> against any person, let me suggest that rights of free
--> expression are
--> not
> Melinda Shore wrote...
>
> Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be
> taking the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's
> probably more appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>
> Melinda
>
I'm against PR-Actions for anything that can pass a Turing test
For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
against any person, let me suggest that rights of free expression are
not unlimited. Any human right has practical limits when it comes into
direct conflict with the rights of another.
For example, consider two college roommates.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Melinda Shore writes:
>Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
>the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
>appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
>
Thank you. I'm just as uncomfortable with the "let's sig
I am for freedom of contribution, regardless of whether or not I like the contributor or what is contributed.
I am against censorship of members who "fit" my first statement.Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be takingthe form of a
Messages like "I'm for this" or "I'm against this" seem to be taking
the form of a vote, when it seems to me that what's probably more
appropriate would be an attempt at persuasion.
Melinda
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailm
On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:14 PM, Peter Dambier wrote:
Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
me too
regards
Peter and Karin
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O
Same here
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Avri Doria
Verzonden: donderdag 6 oktober 2005 21:59
Aan: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin
well said. neither am i.
a.
On
well said. neither am i.
a.
On 6 okt 2005, at 13.42, Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
> Bill Manning wrote:
> >
> > i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
> >
> > --bill
> >
>
> Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.
>
> Peter and Karin
I'm there too.
--
~Randy
___
Ietf maili
Bill Manning wrote:
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
Let Karin and me join your list, Bill.
Peter and Karin
--
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (V
i for one, am not in favor of a PR action against anyone.
--bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I, frankly, feel that this is a waste of our time. All voices, regardless of what we may feel towards any given person, has a right to voice a concern. Ideas don't just come from someone voicing an opinion or insight that everyone agrees with, but also from the thought process initiated by our disa
--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 3:33 AM
--> To: John Leslie; Nick Staff
--> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Ac
I thank Nick for his intent. However I do not know if ad-hominem
debates are the best for the IETF. As an IETF deliverable user, I
wish the IETF to be pertinent and open to all, in my areas of
concerns. Not to see it hurt. May be will Members want to consider
there are three issues in this firs
--On torsdag, oktober 06, 2005 02:59:49 -0400 John Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
But, much though I'd be happy to live without Jefsey's posts, I
firmly believe that the PR-Action Harald proposes is a bad tactic,
and is poorly supported. I won't go into detail on this list. (It is
turn
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
Just for clarification, can you tell me who qualifies as
"Any IETF member" ?
Anyboy who has enough brains to share.
Right now ICANN and IETF have to face their end comming in 2006 because
the contract does end.
There has been nothing that would suggest the contract w
Nick Staff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also I meant to say this on my original post so there's no
> misunderstanding - just because I put this page up it doesn't mean
> I'm signing it (I'm signing neither)
Hmm... I signed it, largely in support of Nick... :^(
I was _very_ nervous about
TED]; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:44:11 -0700 Nick Staff wrote:
>
> > Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin
> > PR-Action Petition may now do so here:
> >
&g
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:44:11 -0700 Nick Staff wrote:
> Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin PR-Action
> Petition may now do so here:
>
> http://jefseymorfin-ietf-pr.endpointsystems.com/default.asp
>
> This is NOT an official IETF ballot and is essentially a "counter petit
Anyone who wants to cast their vote against the Jefsey Morfin PR-Action
Petition may now do so here:
http://jefseymorfin-ietf-pr.endpointsystems.com/default.asp
This is NOT an official IETF ballot and is essentially a "counter petition"
so that both sides can be fairly represented.
This counter
41 matches
Mail list logo
