I will only engage on a couple of points: 1. Obviously those participants who have been contributing in good faith have nothing to worry about.
2. The new participants should read the rules prior to posting, this warning will help them understand what is expected. 3. If you were privately warned, others might have been as well. There is literally no way for you to tell who has been warned privately and who has not. Deb On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 1:14 PM Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Deb, > > On Jul 7, 2026, at 8:55 AM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a public warning to the entire TLS working group, in accordance > with RFC 3934 Section 2 [0]. > > > Thank you for the public reminder. I have a few observations. > > 1. Joseph Salowey issued me an off-list warning on July 6. He > characterized my response to Paul Wouters as a "mischaracterization" of the > IAB's findings. > 2. I asked him to explain how a direct quote constitutes a > mischaracterization. He could not. > 3. He then pivoted the basis to "personal attack." I asked him to retract > the warning as selectively applied and shared more clear counter examples. > He did not respond. > > This public warning appeared only after Joseph could not justify why Paul, > Uri, and Filippo received no warnings for disruptive and poor conduct. When > pressed, he went silent. This message is the response to a question he > could not answer. > > It appears the warning was never about conduct but instead, silence. > > When I asked for clarification, I was met with none. When I asked for > retraction, I was met with none. Instead, the only response was this public > escalation. > > Deb, to be clear, issuing a blanket warning to the entire list, including > participants who have done nothing wrong, to avoid confronting the specific > individuals who actually violated conduct norms is itself extremely poor > moderation at best. It punishes everyone to avoid addressing the few, and, > worse, chills legitimate participation across the board. > > Your bullet points map directly to Joseph's failed private warning. > > *not using people's words out of context > > > I directly quoted the IAB's text: "did not accurately describe the > record." That is not out of context. > > It's fact. > > *not participating in ad hominum attacks (veiled or unveiled) > > ^ (sic) > > Uri Blumenthal called PhD holders and full professors, and even the EU's > Team Leader for Post-Quantum Cryptography, "crypto-wannabes who are now > flooding this list." > > No warning. > > *not sending multiple responses in quick succession > > > Participants on both sides have posted multiple messages throughout this > WGLC. This standard has never previously been cited or enforced. Further, > this warning starves debate during a WGLC; whether that's intentional or > not doesn't matter. > > *no personal attacks, keep it professional > > > Paul Wouters accused participants of "consensus manipulation," dismissed > them as "social media influencers," and claimed "infinite" appeals. No > warning. > > And here, specifically, let me be explicit about the contrast. > > 1. Paul, a former AD who the IAB found "did not accurately describe the > record," accused participants of consensus manipulation on a public mailing > list while the person he was attacking was gagged and unable to respond > within a meaningful timeframe. > > 2. Uri, an MS holder at a defense-funded lab, called PhD holders and full > professors "crypto-wannabes." > > 3. Filippo openly threatened to flood the vote with his social media > followers. > > Any one of these should have resulted in a warning or moderation, yet none > did. > > The only person who received a warning was the one who cited the IAB's own > record to correct false statements. > > We expect people to be considerate and courteous on this list. > > If we see further violations, we will, at our discretion, put that person > on a 30 day posting hold (where the chairs will review posts before > publishing to the list). > > Deb Cooley > Sec AD > > [0] While RFC9945 does obsolete RFC3934, Section 4 of RFC9945 states that > “[u]ntil those procedures and criteria [of RFC9945] are established, all > previous processes referenced in Section 1 [to include RFC3934] shall > remain in effect. > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cEUcbe27qZUBnapkDMExOmHC5I4/ > > > I called these out, and instead of addressing them, you are now warning > the entire list. > > You are the AD I identified in my pending IESG appeal as having prejudged > the moderation issue by publicly stating on-list "I have seen no bias from > my chairs" before any appeal was filed. The IESG has accepted that appeal. > You are now issuing conduct warnings in the same dispute you were > identified as compromised in. > > Further, you acknowledge RFC 9945 obsoletes RFC 3934 but rely on a > transition clause to continue under the old authority. The protections of > RFC 9945, specifically Section 1.2 stating that "viewpoints outside the > rough consensus are not in and of themselves disruptive" and Section 6 > warning against "the potential abuse of the moderation procedures by > moderators, working group chairs, and potentially others that could lead to > censorship of legitimate participation," exist precisely because the old > authority was insufficient. > > To be clear, whether the transition clause permits the old procedures does > not answer whether using them is consistent with the principles the IETF > adopted four months ago. > > I am formally requesting that Joseph retract the off-list warning. I am > formally requesting that conduct standards be applied uniformly regardless > of position on this draft. And I am noting for the record that issuing a > blanket warning to an entire working group to cover for selective > enforcement is not a substitute for fair moderation. > > Finally, I reject this blanket warning on behalf of every participant in > this working group who contributed in good faith and did nothing wrong. > > They do not deserve to be warned because you could not bring yourself to > address the individuals who actually violated conduct norms. A warning > directed at everyone is accountability directed at no one. > > I am requesting that the IESG consider this exchange as supplementary > evidence in connection with my pending appeal accepted on or about July 2, > 2026. > > Very firmly, > Andrew > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
