The 'racial slur' case is purely hypothetical. I will not be addressing this.
In terms of accusing someone of conflict of interest, I don't agree that 'merely liking' a post on another platform creates a conflict. Clicking that button provides no insight, let alone the conclusions you draw from it. I and the chairs always consider carefully who handles specific tasks. For example, if a chair is an author of a draft, they will not be handling the progression of that draft. This is de rigueur* in TLS, and in all working groups. *https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/de-rigueur Deb Cooley On Sat, Jun 6, 2026 at 6:04 AM Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > Deb, > > I want to be precise about what I'm asking, because I think we're > answering different questions. I would like to be explicit: please stop > sidestepping my questions. You are doing so intentionally, and I do not > appreciate it. > > As I did in my initial email, I again agree with everything you've said > about jurisdiction. The Code of Conduct governs IETF lists, meetings, and > the datatracker; it does not reach personal platforms; chairs keep their > own lives and opinions; and no one is being asked to monitor anyone's > account. I conceded all of this at the outset and I concede it again now. > It is not in dispute. > > The question I asked, and which you keep sidestepping, is a different one, > and it sits entirely inside IETF boundaries: > > RFC 2418 charges working group chairs with managing the group's business > fairly and even-handedly, and makes them accountable to the responsible AD > for doing so. Independent of where any statement was made, can a chair who > has publicly endorsed ridicule of a participant in an active dispute, one > that involves a draft that they authored, be seen to rule impartially on > that participant's draft (draft-usama-tls-risks-of-mlkem), and on any FATT > requests originating with the same author? > > That is a question about the requirements of the role, not about conduct > on a personal platform. It does not require reaching outside IETF > boundaries to answer, because the rulings in question are IETF rulings. The > narrow remedy it points to are recusal from those specific procedural > calls, so they are visibly made by someone with no stake in how the author > has been characterized. This is entirely within the IETF's machinery and > requires monitoring no one. > > Again, once more, I'm not asking for sanction or removal, and I'm not > asking you to police any platform. I'm asking whether, on the impartiality > requirement RFC 2418 places on the role, recusal from those specific > rulings is warranted. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > On 6 Jun 2026, at 12:10 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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] > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
