Ignoring the rest of this chain for a minute. I will say that the AD (me) has been contemplating how to answer the questions, outside of what she has already stated.
The code of conduct does govern what happens on this IETF list, other lists, in meetings, and on the datatracker. If someone here violates that code of conduct they will be sanctioned. There is much that happens outside the boundaries of the IETF. There are many, many social platforms on the Internet. There is no earthly way to even begin, if we wanted to do what you suggest. At the risk of repeating myself: Working group chairs are not required to sacrifice their personal lives or personal opinions to serve. There is no requirement for separate email addresses. What they and others do in their personal time, outside the boundaries of the IETF (mail lists, meetings) is their own business and is not subject to the Code of Conduct (RFC 7154). Lets stick with the code of conduct on IETF lists, in meetings, and the datatracker for a start. I would also argue that we should give people the benefit of the doubt that their intentions were good and honorable. Deb Sec AD On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 12:39 PM Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m noting for the record that the AD asked for this to be moved to its > own thread and then, once it was, stopped answering it. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > > On 28 May 2026, at 8:59 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Deb, > > > > Moving [1] to a separate thread, per your request. > > > > You're right about several things: chairs keep their own lives and > opinions, there is no requirement for separate identities, and the > guidelines for conduct carry no machinery for policing what anyone does on > a personal platform. I am not asking you to monitor anyone's account. > > > > I do want to push back, with respect, on one part of the principle as > stated, that what a chair does on a personal platform is, for that reason > alone, none of the IETF's concern. I don't think that can be the rule, and > the cleanest way to see it is the limiting case: if a chair posted an overt > racial slur about participants in this group, none of us would say > "personal platform, not our business." What makes such a post the IETF's > concern is not where it was typed; it is its effect on the environment for > the people in this group, and its bearing on whether that person can still > hold a role that depends on their trust. Location is not the test. Effect, > and the requirements of the role, are. I am not equating a "go work at > Whole Foods" jab with an overt slur, I raise the extreme only to locate the > line, because once we agree the line is not "personal platform = > off-limits," what remains is the proportionate question actually in front > of us. > > > > Furthermore, on a personal note, I absolutely feel less safe > participating in the TLS WG if I know that I stand to be publicly ridiculed > with the chairs endorsing statements that I leave cryptography and go find > other work (or worse kinds of personal attacks; I can think of a few), if I > post something that they disagree with. There is no question in my mind > that I would at this point actively and strongly discourage all of my > Lebanese students from ever participating in the TLS WG. > > > > And at its far lesser magnitude, there is a different question here: not > whether the chair is entitled to a personal opinion (they plainly are) but > whether a chair who publicly endorses ridicule of a participant in an > active dispute can be seen to rule impartially on that participant's draft, > and on any FATT review requests originating from them. RFC 2418 makes > working group chairs accountable to the responsible AD and charges them > with managing the group's business fairly and even-handedly. The > impartiality of the chair is not a personal matter; it is a property of the > role, and it is the one thing the role cannot function without. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > [1] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/hmZH_Rkibo55nS62hQeo3Lx-TqQ/ > > > > Nadim Kobeissi > > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
