On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
> > 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette
> > committee, during the committee is considering a request, and
> > after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of
> > scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such
> > as this one which plague the IETF list.
> > In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser
> > will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette
> > committee, which means that after inventing this entire
> > mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony.
>
> I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the
> decision I can accept it and move on. That's another reason why I think it
> should be an unmanipulated membership.
That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about
someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to
make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely
determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to
do so?
I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular,
although I do have some private opinions on this matter. The question
is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner?
It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and
assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an
exploit said security hole. If this is considered irresponsible when
designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when
designing organizational policies?
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
