Re: Proposed message to IPR list about Todd Glassey (fwd)

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <200306171327.h5HDRKGO001618@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten 
writes:
>> Do I have your approval? [CAN we do this by mail?]
>
>wfm, but I am assuming that he has been given an explicit warning that
>he is in imminent danger of losing his posting rights (i.e., not just
>that his postings are off topic). I don't think we want there to be an
>ambiguity as to the significance of the warnings he has received.
>

I don't think I ever said "stop or we'll yank your posting privileges.
Here are the relevant excerpts.  Some of these were public, some were 
private.  The responses have ranged from "Too bad" (a direct quote) to 
assertions that I'm not a credit to the IESG or my employer to threats 
of legal action.


---------------------

28 May:

Todd -- your repeated suggestions about how to reorganize the IETF's 
core processes are off-topic for the IPR working group's mailing list.
Even if you think our IPR policies are a reason to change our processes,
the process change itself should be discussed on other mailing lists.
You've been posting about this repeatedly -- please stop.

---------------------

28 May (which explicitly quotes 2418):

Your note below contains a number of personal insults, such as the 
accusation that I'm trying to make the standards process harder.  Such 
language is inappropriate on IETF mailing lists, and if posted publicly 
would be further cause for action.  (And no, I'm not "angry"; I'm 
merely trying to run a contentious working group.)

Let me call your attention to the last paragraph of Section 3.2 of RFC 
2418:

   As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals
   may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's
   progress.  In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the
   behavior by communication directly with the offending individual   
   rather than on the open mailing list.  If the behavior persists then
   the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue.  As a last
   resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the
   approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer
   block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing
   list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of operation.)
   Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from
   receiving messages posted to the list.  Other methods of mailing list
   control may be considered but must be approved by the AD(s) and the
   IESG.

Also see http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/moderated-lists.txt
for further guidance.

Note carefully that I'm *not* asserting that your messages (except, of 
course, for the ad hominem attacks) are irrelevant to the IETF.  There 
are, however, other fora that are appropriate for them, such as the 
poised mailing list.  This mailing list is not the right spot.

You've made other postings to this list that are on-topic -- that 
people disagree with you doesn't make them inappropriate.  But off-topic 
postings, accusations about the ethics of the IESG, or, for that 
matter, repeated postings of the same thing, over and over again, even 
if relevant, are disruptive.  Please refrain.


---------------------

8 June:

I would also note -- wearing my IPR chair hat -- that cross-posts 
between the IPR working group and POISED are almost always 
inappropriate.  This post certainly is -- it has nothing whatsoever to 
do with the charter of this group.  Please stop such off-topic posts -- 
NOW.  Note that you have previously be warned privately, pursuant to 
RFC 2418.


---------------------

9 June:

Todd, you have repeatedly posted off-topic, insulting, and (arguably) 
libelous messages to this mailing list.  I've received complaints about 
your postings; the one where you suggested that Bert Wijnen was trying
to create liability was particularly egregious.  (For those who aren't 
on the list, I'm referring to your message of June 2 where you said

        that means that the IP's that are submitted are
        complete otherwise the IETF's editors will have a further liability
        for their actions, unless perhaps that was your intent here.

Looking at the situation more narrowly, Rob and I are trying to run a
very contentious working group.  Doing so effectively and fairly means
permitting discussion of appropriate open issues.  But it also means 
that off-topic posts are not permitted, nor are repeated attempts to 
reopen closed questions.  The IPR working group has no ability and no 
right to change the fundamental nature of the IETF; thus, such posts 
are inappropriate on its mailing list.  Your post was even entitled 
"FLAWS in the Standards Process", which is not related to the IPR 
question.

....


You're not the first person whom Rob and I have admonished about 
staying on-topic.  We sincerely hope that we won't have to send any 
more such messages.  

---------------------

12 June:

So -- in the interests of making progress in this WG, I am politely 
asking everyone to refrain from off-topic postings, even in response to 
other off-topic mail.  We don't want to take stronger measures to 
enforce the request.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)