Actually, for point of reference, here's what I had sent
to the list before I posted my comments here. This person has still
continued with the ranting and I was using this list as a sounding board
before I got really tough. I know now what I need to do and the advice
was helpful. Thanks!
My note re: nastygrams on the list (names removed to protect
the guilty....)
"Actually, Mr. xxxxx, the chair (me) is really waiting
to see when people will get back to the issue at hand - getting CAP out
the door. I am also waiting for people to get back to being adults.
Occasionally, the chair has to step in and suggest we keep things
aboveboard. It that is chastisment, then so be it.
Blasts of emails between two or three people is not the
answer. Making offensive comments about people also is not the answer,
nor appropriate. There is no one person at fault. There are
many, including myself for not getting into the middle of some of these
discussions and saying - stop the noise and get productive.
However, that's not the way the IETF works. The
chair is there to call concensus, keep people cool, and push drafts. We
are not supposed to interfere or persuade people to move in any particular
direction. Therefore, I take great pains to not interfere with dialog..
However, I have to interfere when people write things that are abusive.
It is appropriate for the chair to step in when things get out of
hand and when trying to reach concensus. It is also the responsibility
of the chair to step in and say there may be an issue. I know XXXXX-
and he does not lie. He gets "enthusiastic" with his replies.
(snip ...some irrelevant text...) And when someone starts
making comments like "you lie" on the list, then I have to step
in and say "foul, below the belt, keep it nice."
So, that being said, can we please move on and get this
done. And again, name calling and mud slinging will not be condoned
on the list. "
Eastlake III Donald-LDE008
<Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com> Sent by: owner-wgchairs@ietf.org
09/15/2003 12:31
To
wgchairs@ietf.org
cc
Subject
RE: Question about list members
masquerading as someone else
I would agree with Avri.
Note that saying some statement is a "lie"
is quite different from merely saying it is "wrong" or
"inconsistent" ... In particular, calling it a lie is an
attack on the person by making the assertion about their internal
mental state: that they are deliberately making a statement knowing
it to be wrong. I would think you should contact the accuser privately
and ask them to retract such statements they have made and cease
making them in the future. If they refuse to do so then you could
bar them on that basis.
(Of course, it is hard to have a general policy
that always applies. For example, presumably there is a vanishingly
small probability that the person being disruptive actually has some
proof, like a videotape of the person they are attacking in which
that person says they are going to engage in a campaign of lies.
But even if that were true, the accuser isn't going about things the right
way and should, in the least disruptive way practical, be requesting
some action against the purported liar.)
Donald
-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:00 AM
To: wgchairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question about list members
masquerading as someone else
In some ways it might not matter if the person is masquerading.
If she or he is being disruptive and using personal invective, you
probably have sufficient cause to warn and then restrict from the
list.
I would not in any case make a public list accusation
of pretended identity. Something like that would very hard to prove.
a.
On måndag, sep 15, 2003, at 15:14 Asia/Seoul, pregen@egenconsulting.com
wrote:
I have a situation on my list where I am fairly sure someone
has signed on with a fictitious name. Not a problem really,
lots of people do this. However, in this case, this "new
person" on the list is making comments defending a position
and making comments like "you lie..." etc. The real
problem is this new person is defending the position that someone
on the list can not get anyone else to agree to - and several of us are
fairly sure that the "new person" is indeed the same person who
had made the original position statement.
Has anyone else run into this on their list? If
so, how did you handle it? You can't come out on the list and
say "hm, Mr. so and so, are you really who you say your are
or are you an alias for ....." This one is tricky and
this person is now really causing the list to turn into a ugly and
nasty mess. Before I do what I have planned, I wanted to poll
the other chairs first. Don't you just love this non-paying
stress jobs....8-(