On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:10:50 -0700, "Fleischman, Eric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry to enter this fray, but I'd like to point out that while I
> respect Todd's request to know who is accusing him and why, the rest of
> us don't need to be copied that information. In fact, it is better that
> we aren't copied because to do so would be unfair to the complainer(s).
>
> Discipline is a difficult task to do fairly and because of this there
> are many advantages in respectfully permitting the protagonists to have
> privacy during key parts of the process.
>
As much as I've sparred with Glassey in the past (I suspended him from a
WG mailing list, and was the target of an appeal to the IESG by him), I
think he's right in this case. In my opinion, any sort of disciplinary
action needs to be *perceived* as fair. That may not be as much of an
issue here -- the public record of Todd's postings is appallingly clear --
but I think we do need to follow due process.
I do agree that the Sergeants-at-Arms can act on their own volition, but
if they do they should say so; that gives the community grounds to judge
their behavior.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
