On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 09:53:00PM +0200, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > So I am not asking for any sanction, and certainly not for removal. I > am asking you, as the AD who appoints and oversees the chairs, to > weigh two proportionate things: > > 1. Whether the appearance of impartiality has been affected enough > that recusal of the chair concerned from procedural rulings on > draft-usama-tls-risks-of-mlkem (and from any FATT requests originating > with the same author) is warranted, so that those calls are visibly > made by someone with no stake in how the author has been > characterized.
I believe this is not actionable under IETF processes, therefore it should not surprise that the AD has not taken this action. > 2. A brief acknowledgment to the group that endorsing personal attacks > on contributors is inconsistent with the neutrality the chair role > requires independent of platform, and without anyone needing to > monitor personal accounts. Demonstrable bias on the part of an officer is surely grounds for appeals of adverse decisionmaking. That doesn't obligate the AD to take the requested action at this time, therefore it should not surprise that she has not taken this action. I've not followed the parent thread at all, so I don't know what personal attacks have taken place. Can you post links to these personal attacks? I'll note that IETF is much more like academy than anything else, and as we know, low stakes academic settings tend to produce acrimony. FWIW (not much), I'm not for increasing the stakes as a way of reducing that acrimony. > If the chair concerned chose, on her own, to reconsider the public > endorsement, I think that would go a long way toward restoring > confidence. But I take your point that that is hers to decide, not > something to be compelled through the conduct guidelines. Correct. My recommendation is to call out the behavior you don't like and not appeal to authorities unless it rises to the level of what the IETF ombudsteam exists for, and in the event of adverse calls, appeal. One very appropriate response to passionate debate is dispassion. Debate dispassionately, document relevant objectionable behaviors, then use those in IETF processes as necessary. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
