Below with [NR]: On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 9:14 AM Livingood, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> *From: *Nathanael Ritz <[email protected]> > > > [AL] The real question before the IESG remains to be answered. The IAB > identified WGLC as the venue for Dr. Bernstein's technical objections, and > the chairs have restricted his ability to participate in that venue during > a vote with time limit. Whether the moderation is theoretically permissible > doesn't resolve whether it's compatible with the IAB's own guidance. > > [NR] There’s just the one > marker here, so I want to mention that the “real question” was written by Andrew Lee [AL], not myself. I’ve annotated this email throughout for clarity. [NR] I believe Andrew’s appeal was brought forward in good faith, even if misguided. I do think there is value in considering the impact of moderation against a community time limit. [JL] Dan’s approach is not blameless here; he understands the rules and > norms IETF and by all appearances goes out of his way to not follow them. > This results in things like being moderated, with the end result all the > discussion tends to be about side issues of process and this and that, > rather than the core technical issue he appears to want to address (pure vs > hybrid). That diversion is a real shame and ends up being a waste of the > IETF’s collective time. > [NR] In my opinion, while he is not without his own reasons, DJB appears to have taken the highest mode of friction possible to communicate his position. While friction is a feature the community relies on to help shape high-quality technical proposals, there’s a different kind of friction I see here that is indeed seemingly entirely avoidable. In this other case, I think that represents a bug in the process, especially when that friction is applied during a time limited community event such as Last Call. > JL > Cheers, Nathanael
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
