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

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>]

Thomas,

if we follow this, it is going to result in me writing a draft called 
"following the rules in 2418 to the letter", and detailing the whole raft 
of who-sends-what. And then asking the community if that's an appropriate 
level of mailing list moderation for the IETF.

That's probably an useful thing to do anyway.

I *know* we'll have knee-jerk reactions against removing Todd on the 
mailing list. And then howls of outrage against the knee-jerk reactions 
being ignored when we finally do the dirty deed. And then outrage against 
the outragers for not seeing that it's obvious that he's disruptive and 
should be sanctioned.

The difference between doing this in yet-another-warning and doing it in 
removing him is that the mailing list will include Todd's howls of outrage.

[OK, I'm probably exaggerating. Each of the howls will probably be 2 
messages long.]

Michael Froomkin is right that the first sanction against a yahoo always 
generates more traffic than the yahoo did. Where he's wrong is that we need 
to act against the first yahoo in order to control traffic from the second, 
third and sixty-fourth.

Sigh. I'll send the warning.

              Harald


--On tirsdag, juni 17, 2003 14:02:55 -0400 Thomas Narten 
<narten@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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.