Hello;
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not
claim that honor.
Sorry- wrong word. Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness).
Eliot
Nope, that that either.
Please note that I claim neither
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not
> claim that honor.
Sorry- wrong word. Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness).
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/lis
Dave Crocker writes:
> There is a basic difference between preventing the expression of an opinion,
> idea or the like, versus preventing what is effectively a denial of service
> attack on the conduct of group business.
Yes. A denial of service attack is a technical attack on a server or
networ
At 22:42 23/01/2006, Grossman Dan-LDG004 wrote:
Unlike the previous
matter of an individual who clearly engaged in threats and ad-homenem
attacks, this appears perilously close to being an attempt to suppress a
minority viewpoint. Minority viewpoints need to be heard,
regardless of whether the
t; To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Scott Hollenbeck; ietf@ietf.org;
--> ietf-announce@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC
--> (Jefsey) Morfin
-->
--> Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but
--&
Unlike the previous matter of an individual who clearly engaged in
threats and ad-homenem attacks, this appears perilously close to being
an attempt to suppress a minority viewpoint.
There is a basic difference between preventing the expression of an opinion,
idea or the like, versus pre
I vote in favor of keeping Mr.Morfin as a member of IETF. The greater number of intelligent contributors, the better... This has been enough of a waste of time that we need to shift gears and focus on important issues. Regardless of whether or not a differing viewpoint is respected, consens
Let me preface this
by saying that I have no direct interest in ietf-languages or LTRU, nor do I
have technical expertise in this area. I have also been on a
temporary hiatus from active participation in IETF.
That said, I
overcome my usual reluctance to engage in IETF list discu
y, Eric
--> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Scott Hollenbeck; ietf@ietf.org;
--> ietf-announce@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC
--> (Jefsey) Morfin
-->
--> Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but
--> the om
Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but the ombudsman
for the IETF list. And so he speaks with some authority. Also, he
doesn't come to rash conclusions, and so I for one value his considered
opinion. And that's why I prodded him for more. And I'm more
enlightened because of
@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC
--> (Jefsey) Morfin
-->
--> Marshall,
--> > I do not support approval of this PR-action.
-->
--> Because.??
-->
-->
--> ___
--> Ietf m
-- Original message -- From: Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed > carefully and does not take such decisions lightly, one way > or the other. > > Brian Brian,
I was not questioning the IESG's decisions nor d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I mean really, has anyone ever had their opinion changed because of something someone said during these PR-Actions?
This is in fact only the second last call ever on a PR-action.
I can assure you that the IESG reads the opinions expressed
carefully and does not tak
At 21:32 22/01/2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
So, in my sample picked for "Personal attack and threats", I see no
threats, and really no attacks either.
It is hard to read, and may not be worth reading, but is not actionable IMHO.
Dear Marshall,
Thank you for spending the time to check and for
Hello;
I received some private comments, so I will respond in greater depth.
Please be careful what you ask for.
In doing so, I reread IETF list traffic on this from last September /
October last year, and also the complaint.
So, here goes. First, I am aware of how disrupting posters can
-- Original message -- From: Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Marshall, > > I do not support approval of this PR-action. > > Because.?? > Eliot-
I don't mean any offense by this but the "Because" is the whole problem of these PR-Actions. Somehow "rough concensus" has t
my view.
Thanks, Bert
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 14:21
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey)
Adrian Farrel writes:
> If those who would exclude Jefsey from certain lists feel that repeated 30
> day bans are too much work, I suggest they draft a new process that would
> allow them to create longer bans on specific lists.
An alternative would be for them to find new jobs that don't include
I am against this action.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
is notorious for swinging for Thors Hammer Mjoelnir just see his postings
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:34:48 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Spencer Dawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ietf@ietf.org
Message-
I do not support the action against Jefsey Morfin, because the outcome
would facilitate a ban on all IETF lists without specific cause and
without recourse. I am not in a position to judge the correctness of a ban
on the lists explicitly cited but I do not believe that we have witnessed
behavior th
Because I do not feel that the punishment is merited.
On Jan 22, 2006, at 7:25 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Marshall,
I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Because.??
I posted my thoughts earlier, my understanding is that in the last
call process it is appropriate to restate one's
Marshall,
> I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Because.??
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I do not support approval of this PR-action.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Jan 18, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
The IESG has received a request from Harald Alvestrand to approve
an RFC
3683 PR-action ("posting rights" action) for JFC (Jefsey) Morfin as a
result of a pattern of pr
I second what Michael said.
It may be easy for somebody not involved to hit the delete key, and
it's reasonable to ask "How hard is it to hit the delete key". But
for people doing the work, who have to worry about whether to
respond or not, whether keeping silent will give everybody else
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
This entire fiasco tells me that the people nominally participating
in it have a lot of time on their hands and very little to do, and
they choose to waste it bickering like preschoolers on a playground
rather than spend it trying to do the actual work of the IETF. A
Tim Bray writes:
> Ban him. Openness and inclusiveness are virtues, but not absolutes.
They are only virtues when they are absolute.
> This ban seems to me an expression of respect for the time and energy
> of many dedicated and talented participants here, which are currently
> being wasted by
On Jan 18, 2006, at 4:34 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits final
comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
iesg@ietf.org or
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 17 February 2006.
Ban him. Openness and inclusiveness
Hi Eliot,
> RFC 3683 gives you broad discretion on the basis to make a
> decision, and gives WG chairs broad discretion on what
> actions they should take. As you had a hand in it, perhaps
> you can refresh my memory,
Just for the record... I was not involved in the publication of RFC 3683.
In my opinion, this action is not appropriate in this case.
--
Eric
--> -Original Message-
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> On Behalf Of Scott Hollenbeck
--> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:35 AM
--> To: ietf@ietf.org; ietf-announce@ietf.org
--> Cc: iesg@iet
> "Anthony" == Anthony G Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anthony> Are people on this list still arguing about this? I
Anthony> thought members of this list were supposed to be
Anthony> grown-ups (?).
actually, we've just started arguing about it.
All the previous arguments
Margaret,
RFC 3683 gives you broad discretion on the basis to make a decision, and
gives WG chairs broad discretion on what actions they should take. As
you had a hand in it, perhaps you can refresh my memory, but as I recall
that's all by design. This is not a really freedom of speech exercise,
b
> "Tony" == Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tony> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> What about suspending Jefsey from just the ietf-langugages
>> list and possibly the ltru list?
Tony> Isn't that what the last call says? It allows other list
Tony> mangers
Are people on this list still arguing about this? I thought members
of this list were supposed to be grown-ups (?).
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> What about suspending Jefsey from just the ietf-langugages list and
> possibly the ltru list?
Isn't that what the last call says? It allows other list mangers
to ban him too, but doesn't require it.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dot
Sam,
let me put it this way:
Changing the rules in the middle of the process is Just Plain Stupid. We've
done that too many times to count.
We can return to our experience with the process once this round is over,
and may choose to revisit the set of options we have and see if we can add
so
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harald> --On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 20:03:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
Harald> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd first ask why repeated 30-day suspensions are ineffective.
>> Harald seems to be getting fairly efficien
However a PR action is an incredibly huge hammer.
...
I have to reluctantly agree with Sam. I'm reluctant because
there are far too many days when I wish Jefsey would just
quietly go away Of course, he is not the only person I'd put on
that list, and I imagine I'm on some similar lists kept by
ollenbeck'; 'Sam Hartman';
> ietf@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey)
> Morfin
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> a message of 155 lines wh
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise
ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of
that up
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0500,
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 155 lines which said:
> I also have found that Jefsey's posts have a higher signal-to-noise
> ratio than many peoples' posts, but I am willing to chalk some of
> that up to the fact that he is a
Hi Harald,
> - About five people send thank-you notes, and wonder whether
> the IESG will get off its butt and allow him to be suspended
> permanently, usually accompanied with ruminations about
> whether it makes any sense to participate in an organization
> that is so completely ineffective in
--On torsdag, januar 19, 2006 20:03:56 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd first ask why repeated 30-day suspensions are ineffective. Harald
seems to be getting fairly efficient at suspending Jefsey on
ietf-languages. I believe he's been suspended on LTRU before. Is
Jefsey ac
--On Thursday, 19 January, 2006 20:03 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Even by his own admission Jefsey has been engaging in
> filibustering--a practice that I think we would agree is
> disruptive. Take a look at his most recent appeal to the IESG
> (http://www.ietf.org/IESG/A
Hi.
I agree that Jefsey's participation in LTRU and the ietf-languages
lists has been problematic.
Even by his own admission Jefsey has been engaging in filibustering--a
practice that I think we would agree is disruptive. Take a look at
his most recent appeal to the IESG
(http://www.ietf.org/I
44 matches
Mail list logo
