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

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

IMO, it would be wise to send one more note, cc'ing the WG saying,
you've been warned, and if you persist, you plan on to pursue the
yanking of posting privileges.

Reasons:

1) cc'ing the WG in advance gives the community a chance to support or
   reject your attempt prior to going that far (this is
   useful). Even silence is useful.

2) basic fairness says you warn people in advance, even if they are
   likely to ignore warning.

3) if you don't warn first, the lack of the warning will likely be
   made an issue aftewards, detracting on the real issues.

Also my reading of:

> 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.

This seems to have been done.

> 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.

The above can be read to say explicit warnings are required from the
AD, process wise. So, having harald yank privileges at this time might
be viewed as being inconsistent with process.

> (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.

Thomas